Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16592 of 2008 (5) dt.10-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16592 of 2008 ====================================================== Angad Prasad Sahu .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Mukteshwar Pd. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA) 5 10-01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is to quash the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in Town P.S. case No. 22 of 2008, taking cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] , differing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer in final form. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the basis of complaint petition of Opposite party no.2 Smt. Hira Devi as sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani for investigation and submitting the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16592 of 2008 (5) dt.10-01-2012 report, Madhubani Twon P.S. case No. 22 of 2008 was instituted under [STATUTE] on 27.1.2008 against the petitioner. The police after investigation submitted the final form with report for prosecution of informant under [STATUTE] but the learned CJM, Madhubani illegally took the cognizance under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioner, differing with the conclusion arrived at by the Police, while it has come in course of investigation that the nephew Prem Sah of the petitioner , due to family dispute has falsely implicated the petitioner through Opposite party No.2 Hira Devi, who is lady of bad character. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that false implication of the petitioner at the instance of step brother Prem Sah has given in the statement of the witnesses in paragraph 25 and 27 of the case diary but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has illegally ignored the statement of the witnesses and took cognizance for the offence under [STATUTE] . It appears that Opposite party no.2 Smt. Hira Devi alleged in her complaint petition, which is the basis of Madhubani Town P.S. case No. 22 of 2008 that petitioner Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16592 of 2008 (5) dt.10-01-2012 Angad Prasad Sahu is an employee of Telephone Department and he used to do the work of providing the telephone connection to the Consumer. In that course, she made request for telephone connection handing over Rs.800/- but after passing over one month telephone connection was not provided. Thereafter the complainant went to the house of the petitioner and when she entered in to the house of the petitioner, he closed the door from inside and committed rape on her forcibly and threatened her with dire consequence, in case disclosing the occurrence. The Police on investigation submitted the final form, finding the case not true against the accused- petitioner with report for prosecution against the complainant Opposite party no.2 under [STATUTE] . On perusal of the final form and the case diary the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] , differing with the conclusion arrived at by the I.O. in the final form through the impugned order dated 28.3.2008. It appears from the order dated 28.3.2008 that the learned CJM has taken cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] , differing with the conclusion of the I.O. in the final form on perusing the materials in paragraph Nos. 4,15,16,17 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16592 of 2008 (5) dt.10-01-2012 and 18 of the case diary. At the time of taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate is required to see whether prima-facie case is made out or not. At that time evidence could not be meticulously examined. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 28.3.2008 amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this application is dismissed. As far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner on the point of defence is concerned, he may raise all the points, which is raised herein at the framing of charge at appropriate stage before the trial Court. Arun Kumar/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.