Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17324 of 2011 (2) dt.31-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17324 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Renu Devi , wife fof Bipin Bihari Singh 2. Bipin Bihari Singh, son of late Ramdeo Singh, both are residents of Mohalla-Chainpur, P.S. Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. 3. Brajesh Kumar alias Brajesh Singh 4. Ratnesh Singh alias Ratnesh Kumar, both are sons of late Mohan Singh, both are residents of Village- Sarmastpur, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. 5. Deepak Kumar alias Deepak Kumar Singh, son of Awadhesh Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Mohabbatpur, P.S. Deoriya, District- Muzaffarpur 6. Arjun Sharma alias Arjun Singh Sharma, son of Rajnand Sharma, resident of Mohalla-Chainpur, P.S. Kanti, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Awadhesh Singh, resident of Village- Sarmastpur, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Priyanka Kumari, wife of Binay Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.S. Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 31-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Tr. No.3451 of 2010 (3120/11), arising out of Kanti P.S. Case No.168 of 2009 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (West), Muzaffarpur by which he took cognizance of offence and issued notices to petitioners under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17324 of 2011 (2) dt.31-08-2012 From the First Information Report it appears that allegation has been made by the informant that she is tenant of the house of one Bipin Bihari Singh. It has been alleged that on 16.8.2009 at about 11A.M. she was in her house along with her children and her husband had gone to Deoghar. All on a sudden Bipin Bihari Singh, Renu Devi, wife of Bipin Bihari Singh, Baby Kumari, Arjun Sharma, Santosh Kumar Thakur, Ratnesh Singh, Brajesh Singh, Dipak Kumar and other persons had entered into her house and asked her to vacate the house. When she refused, Ratnesh Singh took out pistol from his pocket and put the same at her temple and gave her three slaps and threatened her if she would not vacate the house just now all articles would be lifted and be thrown outside whereupon all the accused persons had thrown articles on road. It has been alleged that Ratnesh Singh had snatched the golden chain from her neck and Bipin Bihari Singh had taken out Rs. 15,000/- and other valuable articles from her Almirah. When she objected, they abused and threatened her with dire consequences. The case was investigated. The police submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons save and except Renu Devi, Baby Kumari, Santosh Kumar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17324 of 2011 (2) dt.31-08-2012 Thakur, Sanjeev Singh and rest of the persons have been shown in the column of accused. The court below took cognizance not only against persons who have been shown accused but against those on whose favour final form was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is completely a malicious prosecution as admittedly they are/ were tenants of the petitioners and they were illegally in occupation of their house. So much so he has submitted that they had filed a case before House Controller for fixation of rent but that was rejected vide order dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure-4). He further submits that the husband of the informant is carrying a criminal history as he has been made an accused in a case where pistols and live cartridges were recovered from his possession. It has further been submitted that the police has not submitted charge-sheet against some of accused persons and as such the court below should not have taken cognizance against all. He further submits that petitioners are good citizens but this application has been filed with a view to harass them and their whole game plan is to capture the house and still they are in occupation of the house. The present case has been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17324 of 2011 (2) dt.31-08-2012 filed with a view to settle the score of alleged tenancy. In support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments: (i) Dr. Ashok kumar Jha and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2012(3) P.L.J.R. 91 (ii)Darshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley, reported in A.I.R. 2011 SC 1090 and (iii) Baijnath Jha Vs. Sitaram and another, reported in 2008(8) SCC 77. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the question of malafide is dependent on many factors and court can derive this inference when the facts are lucid and clear. The court can not derive conclusion merely because complainant happens to be tenant. There is an allegation that complainant not only threatened the lady but also they had thrown her articles on the road. So far enmity is concerned it cuts both ways. The alleged offence was committed when her husband was not available in the house. He further submits that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the First Information Report that prima facie case is made out against the accused Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17324 of 2011 (2) dt.31-08-2012 persons and so much so a case was filed for fixation of rent can not lead to inference of malicious prosecution when there is specific allegation that accused persons had entered into the house and no

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.