The essential ingredients of kidnapping or abduction under Section 365 IPC, wrongful restraint under Section 354 IPC, and the protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 CrPC.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE three applications are interlined as they have a common genesis on a complaint filed by Smt. Satyabhama Panda, opposite party in each of the cases registered as I. C. C. No. 22 of 1994 before learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurda. According to Satyabhama, petitioner Solemn acted in an illegal manner in arrest ing her husband Desarathi Panda in order to satisfy the ego of petitioners Prafulla Chandra and Ramakanta, who were inimically disposed towards her, and Dasarathi. Allegations of Satyabhama were that while accused-petitioner Soleman was effect ing arrest, he misbehaved with her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354, I. P. C. and since he forcibly took away Dasarathi he committed an offence punishable under Section 365, I. P. C. So far as petitioner Ramakant and Prafulla are concerned, the allegation of Satyabhama was that they had masterminded the whole thing and at their behest petitioner Soleman acted.

( 2 ) ON the basis of complaint filed, cognizance has been taken by the learned SDJM. Khurda of offences punishable under Sections 354/365 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'i. P. C. ') by order dated 2-2-1994. Learned SDJM expressed a view that though the petitioner Soleman was working as Sub-Inspectot of Police, Banki Police Station, he was not given protection under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') as he had not committed the offences in course of his duty.

( 3 ) MR. R. N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the cases submitted that with a view to harass the petitioners, false case has been foisted by Satyabhama. Strong reliance is placed on the first information report lodged by petitioner Ratnakanta at Banki Police Station, which is sub ject-matter of adjudication in G. R. Case No. 15 of 1994 in the Court of learned SDJM, Banki. Dasarathi, the husband of Satyabhama is the accused in the said case. He was arrested on 30-1-1994 at 9. 30 p. m. and was produced in Court on 31-1-1994. He was also later on released on bail. With reference to the order passed by the learned SDJM, Banki on 31-1-1994, it is submitted that Dasarathi did not complain of any ill treatment by Police and even did not make a statement that he was illegally arrested by Soleman. With reference to the statements in the complaint petition, the initial statement of Satyabhama and the statement of witnesses. It is submitted that falsehood is writ at large. This according to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for petitioners is sufficient to show that Satyabhama has not come to court with clean hands, and continuance of the proceeding would be sheer abuse of process of Court. So far as applicability of Section 197, Cr. P. C. is concerned, it is submitted that the learned SDJM should not have expressed any opinion about non applicability of it. Accused-petitioner Soleman had not even appeared before him.

( 4 ) MR. D. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for Satyabhama in each of the applications, submitted that the complaint made by Satyabhama and the statement of the witnesses fully make out a ease for proceeding against the petitioners and at this stage it would not be proper co interfere with the order of cognizance passed by the learned SDJM, Khurda.

( 5 ) IN order to constitute an offence under Section 365, IPC the essential ingredients are as follows : (I) Kidnapping by the accused or abduction by him; (II) Intention of the accused is to keep that person kidnapped or abducted in wrongful or secret confinement. 'kidnapping' is defined in Section 359, I. P. C. and is of two kinds. i. e. , kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. 'abduction' is defined in Section 362, I. P. C. so far as question of kidnapping from India is concerned, there is no allegation that there was kidnapping from India. Therefore, Section 360, which deals with such kid napping has no application. The other type