Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8162 of 2011 (2) dt.19-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8162 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Kishori Mahton son of Late Pritam Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 2. Kameshwar Mahton son of Late Rajo Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 3. Nand Lal Mahton son of Late Rajo Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 4. Bharat Mahton son of Late Rajo Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 5. Upendra Mahton son of Rameshwar Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 6. Kedar Mahton son of Late Damodar Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 7. Santoshi Mahton son of Late Damodar Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 8. Uday Mahton son of Kameshwar Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 9. Pravesh Mahton son of Kedar Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 10. Mithlesh Mahton son of Late Narayan Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui 11. Arjun Mahton son of Kishori Mahton, R/O Vill- Simariya Bikrampur, P.S.-Jamui, Distt.-Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lakshmikant Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 19-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 30.11.2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8162 of 2011 (2) dt.19-06-2012 The counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier to the protest petition there was an F.I.R. in which the allegation has been made that the accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant and put the house on fire and at the same time had gone on vandalism. It has further been submitted that after investigation Police submitted the Final Form which was accepted and at the same time the case was transferred to the another Magistrate for enquiry. The Magistrate has examined three witnesses and has found the prima facie case against the petitioner and directed for issuance of the summons. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed an error of jurisdiction as after acceptance of the final form, the order dated 8.7.2010 does not show the application of his mind and as such, there was no justification for transferring the case exercising the power [STATUTE] rs submits that Chief Judicial Magistrate could have transferred the case after taking cognizance in the matter but he has not followed due procedure as has been provided [STATUTE] ion he has relied on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8162 of 2011 (2) dt.19-06-2012 judgment reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 639 (Md. Abdullah @ Md. Abdullah & ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.) paragraph no. 10 according to him substantiate his argument. The judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. From the record it appears that before transferring the case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has accepted the final form and has recorded the statement therein The order shows that the Chief Judicial Magistrate before transferring the case has applied his judicial mind and only thereafter he has transferred the case for enquiry. In this view of the matter, the submission of the petitioner is not sustainable in law and accordingly, this petition is rejected. However the petitioners will have a liberty to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 427

Statute Text:
Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards. Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.