Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26680 of 2009 ====================================================== Krishna Prasad, son of late Etwari Mahto, resident of village Mohammadpur, P.S. Asthawan, Distt. Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Churamu Prasad, son of late Deonath Mahto 3. Satendra Kumar, son of Churamau Prasad. 4. Keshari Devi @ Sitaviya Devi, wife of Churamau Prasad Opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are resident of village Mahmadpur, P.S. Asthawan, Distt. Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad “Senior Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 4. 09-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Case No. 139C2 of 1997 by which cognizance under [STATUTE] has been taken. He also aggrieved with the order dated 12.6.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Cr. Revision No. 110 of 2008 by which the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif has been affirmed. A case was instituted by the petitioner numbered as Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26680 of 2009 (4) dt.09-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Asthawan P.S. Case No. 99 of 2006 under minor offences in which final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer with a recommendation for prosecution of the Informant under [STATUTE] . In the meanwhile, a protest petition was filed which was converted to a Complaint numbered as Complaint Case No. 380(C) of 2003 in which cognizance under [STATUTE] was taken. The accused persons came before this Court for quashing of cognizance taken in the said Complaint on the period of limitation in which the order of cognizance was set aside. The submissions of the petitioner is that in the facts of the case, no offence whatsoever is made out specially since the Magistrate had found a prima facie case against the accused persons and taken cognizance on the basis of Complaint-cum- Protest petition. Notices had been issued to the accused persons who despite service of notices have chosen not to appear before the Court. Having considered the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to allow this petition. In the result, the application is allowed and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26680 of 2009 (4) dt.09-04-2012 3 / 3 3 entire proceeding including the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda, in connection with Complaint Case No.139C2 of 1997 is hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.