Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4941 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Chandrika Yadav, son of Chhopit Yadav 2. Ramashray Yadav, son of Chandrika Yadav 3. Motilal Yadav, son of Chandrika Yadav 4. Jitendra Yadav, son of Hiralal Yadav 5. Hira Lal Yadav, son of Chandrika Yadav 6. Yogendra Yadav, son of Hiralal Yadav 7. Dudh Nath Yadav, son of late Sita Yadav 8. Shiv Kumar Yadav, son of Gorakh Yadav 9. Ramesh Yadav, son of Shiv Kumar Yadav 10. Nagendra Yadav, son of Shiv Kumar Yadav 11. Sri Kishun Yadav, son of late Chhopit Yadav 12. Jitesh Kumar Yadav, son of Vakil Yadav 13. Chhattu Yadav, son of Raj Kumar Yadav 14. Hawaldar Yadav, son of Sri Kishun Yadav 15. Ramadhar Yadav, son of Hari Kishun Yadav 16. Surendra Yadav, son of Hari Kishun Yadav, all residents of Village- Khawaspur Khalifa Ke Tola, P.S. Krishna Garh Barhara, District- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. Babita Devi, wife of Chandradip Yadav, resident of Village- Khwaspur Khalifa Ke Tola, P.S. Krishna Garh, Barhara, District- Bhojpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RAjednra Nath Sinha, Advocate, For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Khursheed Anwar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 23-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.10.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in Complaint Case No.2178 (C) of 2008/5375- Tr. Of 10 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4941 of 2011 (2) dt.23-03-2012 2 / 2 2 According to the complaint petition, the accused persons have entered into the house and have taken away the cash of Rs.20,000/- and ornaments worth Rs. 50,000/- and they have also assaulted. At the first instance the Magistrate has refused to take cognizance. Thereafter the said order was challenged before the sessions court and he after examining the materials on record has remanded back the matter and quash the order of the Magistrate and thereafter the court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . Though First Information Report was lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code but the court below has taken cognizance only under [STATUTE] only. I do not find any error in the impugned order. This application is accordingly 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: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.