Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3723 of 2012 =================================================== Anwarul Ansari S/o Late Noor Mohammad Ansari Resident of Village- Dadraul, Police Station- Matiariya, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sams Tabrej, S/o Shamsul Hoda, R/o Village-Narainpur, P.S.- Ramnagar, District-West Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv. : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Ranjan, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy “Raman,” APP. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 06. 27.09.2012 The Petitioner seeks quashing of entire proceeding including the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagaha in Tr. No. 3448 of 2011 arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 342 of 2008 by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The background facts of the case is that on 27.05.2008 the son of the Petitioner filed a case against the father of Shamshul Hoda, the present informant Shams Tabrez that his sister’s marriage was fixed with a boy who they claimed was his son and a ceremony was held in which the groom party was given gifts and cash. Later on, it was learnt that the boy was neither the son nor belonged to their caste. He then filed a case under [STATUTE] and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On 02.09.2008, the said Shams Parwez, son of the accused, Shamshul Hoda filed the present Complaint stating therein that in the night between 01/02.09.2008 four Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3723 of 2012 (6) dt.27-09-2012 2 unknown persons came to his house, held his hands and took him to nearby fields and threatened him that if he did not marry with the daughter of the Petitioner serious consequences would arise. It has been submitted that there is no allegation that the Petitioner had gone to threaten the informant personally and even consider the allegations in the First Information Report no offence whatsoever would be made out against the accused. On the other hand, the counsel for the Informant submits that charges have to be framed in near future and, therefore, the prosecution be not interfered with. Having heard the respective counsels, I am of the view that in the nature of allegations levelled the accused would be protected [STATUTE] :- “95 Act causing slight harm--Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.” Hence, the entire proceeding including the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagaha in Tr. No. 3448 of 2011 arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 342 of 2008 is, hereby, quashed. The application stands allowed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.