Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5402 of 2011 (2) dt.28-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5402 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Siya Saran Chaudhary, son of Chamari Chaudhary, ASI Suryagraha, P.S.-Suryagarha, Distt.-Lakhisarai. 2. Surendra Giri son of Late Ragho Giri, S.I., Suryagraha, P.S.-Suryagarha, Distt.-Lakhisarai. 3. Biso Paswan osn of Bino Paswan 4. Ravish Pawan son of Biso Paswan Both resident of village-Kashichak, P.S.-Piri Bazar, Distt.-Lakhisarai. 5. Rajendra Mahto son of Late Chandi Mahto 6. Amrit Mahto, son of Rajendra Mahto 7. Haribansh Mahto, son of Rajendra Mahto No. 5 to 7 are resident of village-Garhi Bisanpur, PS-Piribazar, District-Lakhisarai. 8. Ghan Shyam Tiwari, son of Late Nitya Nand Tiwari, resident of village- Maniyarchak, PS-Piribazar, District-Lakhisaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. III, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 28-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance dated 24.3.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 671 (C)/2008 for offences under [STATUTE] . The order of cognizance has been affirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Lakhisarai in Cr. Rev. No. 199/2009 after examination of facts and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5402 of 2011 (2) dt.28-03-2012 materials available on record has found materials are available for taking cognizance. From the complaint petition it appears that offence is made out against the accused persons stating the fact that complainant along with his family were sleeping in his house. Accused persons entered in the house on the plea that his son has been declared absconder and they had come to execute to the order of attachment passed against them. Accused persons forcibly took away the valuable articles causing loss to the petitioner and they have also assaulted his son. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint case has been filed after delay of 8 months so it is a completely malicious prosecution. It has been submitted that it is an admitted fact that son of complainant was arrested on that date. This case has been lodged in order to putting pressure on the police official for the purposes of keeping their cold feet against complainant and his son . The material that has been brought by way of complaint petition and solemn affirmation constitute offence against petitioner and defence that has been raised by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty, the petitioner to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. If such application is filed, the court below is expected Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5402 of 2011 (2) dt.28-03-2012 to examine the matter and pass a reasoned order without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 147

Statute Text:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.