JOKHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Viresh Mishra, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Mishra and Sri S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri B. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav.

(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet of Case Crime No. 448 of 2008, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P. S. Campierganj, district Gorakhpur pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 17, Gorakhpur vide Criminal Case No. 2288 of 2008.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 that in the present case minor girl has been kidnapped. The applicant is father-in-law of the main accused Ram Milan Tripathi, it has been specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that the minor girl has been kidnapped by co-accused Ram Milan Tripathi in connivance with the applicant and other co-accused persons. The kidnapped girl namely Preeti aged about 13 years has not been recovered till today. During investigation the statement of O.P. No. 2 Lal Ji Yadav was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who supported the F.I.R. version by alleging that the applicant and three other co-accused persons has enticed away his daughter for the purpose of performing the marriage. The other witnesses namely Ram Velas son of Mangroo has also been interrogated under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who categorically stated that Km. Preeti Yadav was student of Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir, Machhaligaon, he saw her in the company of the applicant and other co-accused persons. The statement of witness Puranmasi son of Sri Mangroo has also been recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. who has supported the prosecution version by alleging that he had seen the applicant and other co-accused persons having the conversation with Km. Preeti Yadav, thereafter they have taken away the girl. The statements of brother and mother of Km. Preeti have been recorded who supported the prosecution version. During investigation INvestigating Officer has collected the cogent evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. The INvestigating Officer has not committed any error in submitting the charge-sheet. Learned Magistrate concerned has also not committed any error in taking the cognizance against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 5.7.2008. IN the present case, minor girl has been kidnapped, who has not been recovered so far, the gravity of the offence is too much. The present application filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings is devoid of merits, the same may be dismissed.