Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18621 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Urmila Devi Sah W/O Sri Pawan Kumar Sah C/O M/S Shakti Electricals, ABC Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Town & Distt-Patna 2. Nikhil Sah S/O Sri Pawan Kumar Sah C/O M/S Shakti Electricals, ABC Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Town & Distt-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arun Das S/O Sri Banshidhar Das, Proprietor M/S Mamta Sales Corporation (Super Stockist) Usha Shriram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Ist Floor, Hilsa Kothi, Jamal Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Distt-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.23587 of 2012 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Das @ Arun Das, son of Bansidhar Das, resident of village Chhoti Badal Pura, P.S. Khagoul, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Urmila Devi Sah, wife of Pawan Kumar Sah, Proprietor of M/s. Shakti Electricals, situated at ABC Complex, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Distt. Patna, residing at Ground Floor, Arunoday Bhawan, Jagat Narain Road, P.S. Kadamkuan, Distt. Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No.18621 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sah, Adv. For the State : Mr. B. Ram, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, Adv. (In Cr.Misc. No.23587 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3. 08-10-2012 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State. The Petitioner in Cr. Misc. 18621 of 2012 seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18621 of 2012 (3) dt.08-10-2012 2 / 3 2 the Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2012 by which he has affirmed the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1221(C) of 2010 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The case of the Complainant is that he was appointed as Super Stockist by the Company of the Petitioner but certain financial dispute arose between them and he claimed that a sum of Rs. 24,714/- remained due with the Petitioner who also later on removed him from the super stockist ship. It was under these circumstances that the Complainant sought that the Petitioner be prosecuted against for having cheated him. The Petitioner in Cr. Misc. 23587 of 2012 seeks entire proceeding including the order dated 16.8.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1433(C) of 2010 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . The case of the Complainant is that in the background of business transaction between the parties, the Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 23587 of 2012 on a certain date came to her shop and threatened to stop correspondence with her or the Company, or otherwise be ready to face dire consequences. It was under these circumstances the Complainant sought prosecution against the accused. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18621 of 2012 (3) dt.08-10-2012 3 / 3 3 It is note worthy that the parties of both the cases are interrelated in the sense that the Petitioner No. 1 of Cr. Misc. 18621 of 2012 is the Complainant of Complaint Case No. 1433(C) of 2010 instituted against the Petitioners of Cr. Misc. 23587 of 2012 whereas the Petitioner of Cr. Misc. 23587 of 2012 is the Complainant of Complaint Case No. 1221(C) of 2010 instituted against the Petitioners of Cr. Misc. 18621 of 2012. It is undisputed that both the Complaints arise out of a financial dispute between the parties and they agree that the best remedy for them would be to approach the Civil Court for settlement of their disputes. In view of such, the applications are allowed and the entire proceeding including the orders dated 26.3.2012 passed in Cr. Revision No. 201 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Patna and dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1221(C) of 2010 and entire proceeding including order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1433(C) of 2010 are hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 506

Statute Text:
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.