Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13345 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Md. Nasim Hashmi, Son of Hafiz Md. Salimuddin. 2. Md. Salim @ Md. Salimuddin, Son of Late Md. Hasim Ali. 3. Shakila Bano Wife of Hafiz Md. Salim. 4. Md. Naushad Hashmi @ Naushad, Son of Hafiz Md Salim. 5. Farhat Jahin @ Farhat Jabin, D/o Hafiz Md Salim. 6. Md. Raizwan, Son of Hafiz Md. Salim. All resident of Village Pathal Kudwa, Islam Nagar, P.S. Loar Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Anjum Aara, D/o Refique Alam, Resident of Village Baida, P.S. and P.O. Sherghati, District – Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha-10 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-06-2012 Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Singh No. 5, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complaint / Opposite Party No. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against an Order dated 16.05.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sherghati, in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2006, Tr. No. 1449 of 2006. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 385 & 504 of the Indian Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13345 of 2010 (3) dt.21-06-2012 2 / 2 2 Penal Code against petitioner no. 1, 2 & 3 and cognizance under [STATUTE] was taken against petitioner no. 4, 5 & 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order of cognizance only on the ground that the learned Magistrate was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the case, and as such, order of cognizance is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has taken this Court to paragraph no. 11 of the complaint petition and submits that averment made in paragraph no. 11 makes it clear that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which has passed the order of cognizance. Be that as it may, so far order of cognizance is concerned, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction it may not be interfered with. Further, in the present case part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and as such, I do not find any defect in the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.