KALI PRASAD SON OF LATE NAND PRASAD AND BIRENDRA PRASAD ALIAS BIRENDRA KUMAR SON OF KALI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND RAM PRAVESH PRASAD RAM KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HeardJlearned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There is none on behalf of opposite party No. 2 the complainant to represent this application.

(2.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 25.02.2005 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 248/2004 by learned Sessions Judge, Saran, confirming the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by Shri Hari Shankar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, refusing the prayer the discharge the petitioners for the offences under Section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code in case arising out of Mashrak P.S. Case No. 99/1999.

(3.) Undisputedly, opposite party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 1308/1999 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra for the offence under Section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners alleging therein that they arrived in the house of one Baijnath Prasad where minor son of the complainant Akhilesh aged about 11 years was engaged for domestic work. Next morning they returned and son of the complainant accompanied them to carry the luggage up to the railway station Mashrak, when the boy did not returned in time, search was made and it reveals that he also proceeded with the petitioners for Gopalganj. The petitioners were approached and assured to return the boy after a week since he has gone at the house of their relative, but when the boy could not return, . complainant was filed, sent before police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal ProcedureV Code, where case was instituted, after investigation police submitted final form, also taking into consideration statement of the victim made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but taking a different view, Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance giving rise to Cr. Misc. No. 7860/2001 which appears dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2004, finding no reason to interfere at the relevant stage.