The entirety of materials brought on record by the prosecution should be considered, and if only one view is possible to be taken, the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial.

JUDGMENT

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ranchi in Case No. R. C. 02(S)/2014-PAT-R whereby and where under application for discharge preferred by the petitioner under section 239 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been rejected.

3. A First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that the husband of the informant namely Vikash Kumar was forcibly taken away by the petitioner to her official residence being House No. F/34, Sector III, H.E.C. Colony, Ranchi. It has been stated that her husband is a witness who had given his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the Central Bureau of Investigation in connection with another case.

4. Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 182 of 2013 the case was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation which after investigation had submitted charge-sheet under Sections 195A, 323, 342, 365, 368, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to which cognizance was taken. An application for discharge was preferred by the petitioner under section 239 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 which, however, was rejected on 07.12.2016 and which is impugned to the present application.

5. It has been stated by Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 does not contain justifiable reasons for not discharging the petitioner from being criminally prosecuted. It has been stated that the court has to consider all the materials which have been collected in course of investigation but had adopted a pick and choose method by only considering those materials which favour the prosecution. It has been stated that no resistance was given by the petitioner at the time of abduction as per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of abduction. Learned senior counsel submits that the raison d''etre for alleged kidnapping is the 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by Vikash Kumar in the case related to what is infamously known as Horse Trading case. Learned senior counsel further submits that the ingredients for secretly/wrong fully confining the husband of the informant by the petitioner is totally absent. Learned senior counsel further submits that witnesses Habibullha Ansari and Babu Chandra Prasad have clearly revealed that the abducted person had a mobile in which he was conversing which would show that it was not a case of forcible abduction. It has further been stated that the ingredient of Section 365 of Indian Penal Code was never present in the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the trial court totally misdirected itself in refusing to discharge the petitioner for the offence alleged as proper consideration has not been made to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Furthering his argument, it has been submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the learned trial court to advert to the entire materials collected in course of investigation and not specifically with only those materials which favour the prosecution and, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 being not in accordance with law is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel in support of his contentions has referred to the judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another reported in AIR 1979 (SC) 366 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai And Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617.

6. Countering the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, has stated that a case is clearly made out against the petitio