Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17621 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Vidya Bhushan Pandey , Son of Late Gaurishanker Pandey, R/o Harakhuan, P.S. Gopalganj, Dist- Gopalganj, presently residing at Prasadi Pur Tola Sahuli, P.S. Hussainganj, District-Siwan 2. Sambhu Pandey S/O Late Gaurishanker Pandey R/O Harakhuan P.S. Gopalganj, Dist-Gopalganj 3. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Mishra @ Jhunna Mishra S/O Madhaw Mishra R/O Sohagpur, P.S. Hathua, District-Gopalganj 4. Dudh Nath Pandey S/O Late Ramrekha Pandey R/O Village- Bhantapokhar, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District-Siwan .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bhola Pathak S/O Sri Deenanath Pathak, R/O Village- Prasadipur Tola Sahuli, P.S. Hussainganj, District-Siwan .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ---------------------- 8 15-03-2012 Heard Sri Shubhash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Mustaque Alam, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr.Revision No.30 of 2006, whereby the revision petition preferred against the order of cognizance dated 20.01.2006 in Complaint Case no.1344 of 2003 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, was dismissed. Short fact of the case is that in the year 2003, Opp.Party Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17621 of 2008 (8) dt.15-03-2012 2 / 5 2 no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.1344 C of 2003 arraying all the petitioners as accused for commission of offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act on an allegation that the complainant was intercepted by the accused persons and on the point of pistol Rs.3000/- was snatched by the accused persons. After filing the complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 25.09.2004 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against rejection of complaint petition, the complainant preferred a revision vide Cr.Revision No.187 of 2004, which was allowed on 26th October, 2005 and the case was remitted back to the learned Magistrate for conducting further enquiry. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order, i.e. order dated 20.01.2006 took cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order of cognizance, has argued that once the revisional court had remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate for conducting further enquiry, without any further enquiry the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance and proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-5 to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17621 of 2008 (8) dt.15-03-2012 3 / 5 3 petition, which is certified copy of the ordersheet in Complaint Case No.C-1344/2003/ Tr. 2354/06. He has drawn my attention to the order dated 16.11.2005, which makes it clear that after the revisional order, the learned Magistrate fixed the case for further enquiry and directed the complainant to produce further evidence. However, subsequently without any further evidence, by order dated 20.01.2006 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence, as mentioned herein above. It was submitted that the second order on the same material, on which firstly complaint petition was rejected, amounts to review of earlier order by the learned Magistrate, which is not permissible under the provision of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in the complaint petition, only allegation was made against petitioner no.1, who is a retired High School teacher. Of course, other petitioners were also implicated in this case, but without disclosing any overt act. He further submits that the reason for implicating the petitioners was that earlier one complaint petition was filed by one Most. Buchai Kunwar against the complainant and other accused persons, who were being supported by the accused persons of the present case. Sri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17621 of 2008 (8) dt.15-03-2012 4 / 5 4 petitioners. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate , while taking cognizance of offence, was prima facie satisfied on the materials available on record regarding the occurrence committed by the petitioners and, as such, while taking cognizance, he has committed no error . He has further submitted that at this stage Court has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. At the stage of cognizance, the learned Magistrate was not required to delve into the case in detail on merit. In support of his argument, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has referred to Judgments reported in AIR 2004 SC 1734( Jagdish Ram Vs.State of Rajasthan and another) as well as 2006 Cr.L.J. 4409( Thota Papi Reddy & Ors. Vs. Gudalli Yellaiah & Anr.). He submits that it is a settled law that at the time of cognizance only requirement is to see as to whether prima face case is made out or not. The learned Magistrate, while passing the order, has committed no error. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is not in dispute that the complaint petition was firstly rejected under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25.09.2004, which was challenged by the complainant in revisional court vide Cr.Revisio

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.