Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43160 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Kedar Sah son of Late Higru Sah 2. Mahendra Sah, Son of Late Higru Sah, both are resident of village- Jitwarpur ( Shahpara) P.S. Barsoi, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gajju Sah @ Bhaju Sah, Son of Late Sona Lal Sah, presently residing at Village-Jitwarpur, P.S. Azamangar, ( OP Salmari), District-Katihari .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------------- 2 21-03-2012 Heard Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Parmanand Kunwar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.07.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.CA2597 of 2008 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order, initially argued that on perusal of complaint petition, no criminal offence is made out. He submitted that on perusal of complaint petition it is evident that it was out and out a case of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43160 of 2009 (2) dt.21-03-2012 2 / 2 2 civil nature and, as such, learned Magistrate was not required to proceed with the case. He has further submitted that the complainant is not at all related with the petitioners. He had claimed to be son of Late Higru Sah, father of petitioners. It was also argued that the complainant was virtually a domestic servant. He submits that family of the complainant had earlier also filed number of cases against the petitioners. I have perused the materials available on record including the complaint petition. On perusal of paragraph-6 of the complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that the complaint petition discloses offences. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. If so advised the petitioners may raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition, at the appropriate state. At this stage, this Court is not required to interfere with the order of cognizance that too while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised sparingly . NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 421

Statute Text:
Section 421 of the Indian Penal Code. Fraudulent removal or concealment of property etc., to prevent distribution among creditors. Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.