Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11808 of 2011 ====================================================== P.I. Mathew And Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.M.Joseph, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 08-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 19th January 2011 passed in Complaint Case no. 1014 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . From the complaint petition it appears that the complainant along with others was called for admission on 30th April 2010 for admission of his son by the Principal of the School. When the complainant contacted the Principal, he refused to take admission stating that there was no vacancy in the School. The complainant requested for admission saying that he was an Advocate and he also reminded him (Principal) that he had assured him(complainant) for admission of his son and thereafter the Principal reacted very badly and refused to take admission. It Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11808 of 2011 (3) dt.08-11-2012 2 / 3 2 has been alleged that the Principal had asked the Darwam to expel the complainant forcibly and in that process there was a quarrel and they had taken Rs.4,500/- and also a mobile worth Rs.2,600/- from the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the story that has been given in the complaint petition is unbelievable and there cannot be any admission after March of every year and admission could not have been taken in the midst of the Session. It has further been stated that the in the complaint petition name of the boy has also not been mentioned and the complaint petition has been filed with ulterior motive. Having considered the rival contention of the parties this Court is of the view that the veracity of the statement made in the complaint petition cannot be tested at this stage and it can be tested during the trial. This court finds no error in the order impugned. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the court below is directed to complete the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, without giving any unnecessary adjournments to the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the Principal has been made accused, it is very difficult for him to remain present in court proceeding which will create lot of problems in the School. Hence, it is expected that if such Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11808 of 2011 (3) dt.08-11-2012 3 / 3 3 application is filed, the court below will pass order in accordance with law in view of the submissions made above. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.