Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23678 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Jamuna Singh @ Jamuna Prasad Singh S/O Late Manager Singh R/O Village - Chaknur, P.S. Dighwara, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Amrendra Kumar,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 30-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 19th April 2011 passed in Dighwra P.S.Case No. 7 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence [STATUTE] nformant is the Railway Contractor and on 16th January 2009, at about 6:50 P.M. Jamuna Prasad and his two sons along with some other persons on two motor-cycles came to the Railway Crossing No.16 and had taken away the informant forcibly to his house. It has been stated that the informant was assaulted, abused and Rs.8000/- was taken from his pocket and they were uttering to kill the informant. By that time, Police arrived and he was saved, but the accused Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23678 of 2011 (2) dt.30-11-2012 2 / 2 2 persons fled away. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police investigated the case and submitted Final Form and also recommended for instituting case [STATUTE] differed with the Police report and on the basis of materials collected during investigation took cognizance against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 65 years and other persons have been left out but the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance only against the petitioner which shows non-application of mind. Counsel for the State has submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality and has take taken cognizance on the basis of the materials available in the case diary. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court feels that the court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the appropriate stage of trial. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 182

Statute Text:
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Giving false information to a public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant: to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.