Pitamber Mishra vs The State of Bihar and Others

Rekha Kumari, J.—This is an application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, Camp Court, Rosera in Criminal Revision No. 481 of 2004 by which he has upheld the order of Sri V.D. Rai, J.M., Rosera refusing the prayer of the petitioner to commit G.R. Case No. 34 of 2003/Tr. No. 720 of 2005 to the Court of Session. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It appears that the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that on 16.1.2003 at 7-8 P.M., Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 alongwith some unknown persons came to the door of the informant and called him and they took him at a distance of about 200 meters from his house. They were armed with Pistols. The petitioner asked them as to where they were taking him. On this they replied that they had abducted him and would not release him unless he pay them at that time Rs. 50,000/-and rupees two lakhs after ten days. They also threatened him that otherwise they would kill him. The petitioner paid them Rs. 7500/- which was with him. In the meantime, the villagers came to know of the incident and the accused persons fled away giving the petitioner threatening that they would come again on 18.1.2003 and if he would not pay them Rs. 50,000/- on that date, they would kill him. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under sections 447, 341, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections. 25(1-B)A and 26 of the Arms Act. Cognizance was accordingly taken.

At trial charges were framed under the above sections. After examination of five prosecution witnesses, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution u/s 323 Cr.P.C. to commit the case to the Court of Session on the ground that an offence under section364A I.P.C. which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session is made out against the Opposite Parties. Shri V.D. Rai, J.M., 1st Class, Rosera after perusing the F.I.R. and the evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that no offence u/s 364A I.P.C. is made out in the case. He accordingly rejected the prayer of the prosecution.

The petitioner himself filed a revision application against the above order. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. who opposed the prayer also held that no ingredient of the offence u/s 364A I.P.C. is made out on the allegations. He, hence, passed the impugned order dismissing the revision application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the F.I.R. and the evidence led on that basis in Court would show that the petitioner was abducted for ransom. Hence, the Opposite Parties were liable for the offence u/s 364A I.P.C. and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case should have been committed to the Court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the revision application.

At the outset it may be mentioned that though the petitioner has filed an application under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C, the application, in fact, is an application for revision against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Revision Application. Therefore, the application is barred under the provisions of Section 399(3) Cr.P.C.

Besides this, even if it be assumed that the application is maintainable, Section 364A I.P.C. reads thus:

"whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

The section, therefore, is clear that in order to constitute an offence under this section, the demand to pay ransom must be made to any person other than the person kidnapped/abducted but in this case the demand to pay ransom was made to the petitioner himself who was allegedly kidnapped by Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, both the courts below were correct in holding that no offence u/s 364A of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the Opposite Parties. So, on this score also the impugned order cannot be interfered with. In the result, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. This application is accordingly dismissed.