Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1751 of 2012 (2) dt.21-03-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1751 of 2012 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Rajhans & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 21.03.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and with the consent of both the parties, this petition is being disposed off at the admission stage itself. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C for quashing the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Cr. Revision no. 82/2011 by which he confirmed the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in GR case no. 2470/2010 arising out of Sabour P.S. case no. 132/2010. It would appear from annexure 1 to this petition, photostate copy of FIR of Sabour P.S. case no. 132/2010 that petitioners and five FIR named persons were made accused for the offence under [STATUTE] . Annexure 2 to this petition, certified copy of final form of Sabour P.S. case no. 132/2010 reveals that police after investigation submitted charge sheet against FIR named accused persons and concluded the investigation but no finding in the final form was given in respect of the petitioners. So, it is not clear as to whether Investigating officer Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1751 of 2012 (2) dt.21-03-2012 had kept investigation pending against the petitioners or sent the petitioners for trial. Moreover, it appears from the impugned order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Cr. Revision no. 82/2011 that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, after submission of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. It is well settled principle of law that cognizance taking Magistrate has got ample power to differ with the findings of the police. So, even if it is assumed that petitioners were not sent up for trial by the investigating agency, then also, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur had ample power to take cognizance against the petitioners also. Moreover, learned Sessions Judge has already given liberty to the petitioners to raise their plea before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge, and, therefore, I am of the opinion that this petition does not have any merit and must be dismissed at the admission stage itself. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, petitioners may raise their plea before the learned trial court at the time of framing of the charge as observed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 30.5.2011. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)

Applicable IPC Section: 506

Statute Text:
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal intimidation. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc — and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.