Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3749 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Nandan Rai, son of late Gyani Rai 2. Jagdish Rai, son of Ram Prayag Rai 3. Pramila Devi, wife of Bindeshwar Rai 4. Ram Narayan rai, son of alte Gena Rai, all resident of Village Keos Nizamat, P.S. Samastipur, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Narayan Rai, son of Saryug Rai, resident of Village-Keos Nizamat, P.S. Samastipur(M), District-Samastipur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 14-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in S.T. N.256 of 2010, arising out of Samastipur (M) P.S. Case No.564 of 2008 under [STATUTE] whereby the application under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners by which prayer has been made that no case is made out under [STATUTE] has been rejected. According to the First Information Report Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3749 of 2011 (2) dt.14-03-2012 2 / 4 2 allegation has been made for assault and demand of Rs. 25,000/-. The trial court while disposing of the matter has considered the injuries received by the victim on his vital part and also narrated the same in full scale. After considering the evidence on record the court of session has recorded the finding that offence under [STATUTE] is made out and submission of the defence that no case under [STATUTE] is made out has been rejected. The petitioners have challenged the said order on the ground that the court below has fallen in error in coming to the finding that offence under [STATUTE] is made out and has wrongly read different injuries received on the person. It has been submitted that the court below has not examined the injuries that has been recorded during course of investigation. He further submits that the injuries that have been brought before the court has not brought during course of investigation before the Investigating Officer and as such the court below has wrongly recorded a finding of making out a case under [STATUTE] . In support of his contention he has relied on a judgment in the case of Krishna Kumar @ Munna Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3749 of 2011 (2) dt.14-03-2012 3 / 4 3 Lal Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009(2) PLJR 77 on the premises that the court while passing the order has to consider the evidence and if he comes to a finding that all ingredients of the offences on the standard of a prima facie scale are constituted then only he will be able to say that the offences which appeared in the First Information report/complaint petition committed by the accused persons and if the court does not come to a finding then in that circumstances the court should absolve the accused persons. The court has further held that in other words, if the facts do constitute an offence which could not be exclusively triable by the court of session then the Judge ceases to have any jurisdiction in trying the case and shall have to act as per the provision of section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case the court has considered the injury report and the finding recorded by the court below can not be said to be a perverse finding or any way illegal as the Sessions Judge considered nature of injuries sustained on different parts including vital parts and criterion fixed in the aforesaid case is available in case in hand In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3749 of 2011 (2) dt.14-03-2012 4 / 4 4 refusing to discharge the petitioner under [STATUTE] . Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the points before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 385

Statute Text:
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting or attempting to put in fear of injury, in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.