Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7285 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Md.Hasnain Khan 2. Md. Asif Alam 3. Md. Rifu @ Ripu both sons of Md. Hussain Khan, all resident of Mohalla Kabirpur P.S. Nathnagar (Lalmatiya), Dist. Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Md. Kasim son of Md. Salim R/o Kabirpur, P.S. Nathnagart, (Lalmatiya) Dist. Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 10-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate I/c, in connection with Nathnagar (Lalmatiya) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2009 whereby and where under petitioners have been summoned to face the trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there happens to be land dispute between the parties. It has further been submitted that there happens to be counter case for the same occurrence. Apart from this a plea of alibi has also been taken up with regard to petitioner Md. Asif Alam disclosing that he happens to be Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7285 of 2010 (3) dt.10-05-2012 2 / 2 2 soldier and on the alleged date and time of occurrence he was discharging his duty. 4 Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned C.J.M has taken cognizance after going through the materials so submitted in connection with section 173 of the Cr.P.C. 5. So far plea of alibi is concerned, this is a matter of trial. With regard to the other points, case and counter case is not going to belie the action of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, because of the fact that same happens to be matter of evidence which should be only material to be seen during the course of trial. So far propriety of the order is concerned, specific ingredients prescribed there for is available scrutinized properly on the basis of police report. Consequent upon I do not see any cogent ground to interfere with the order impugned. The petition is dismissed. M.Rahman/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

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.