Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41782 of 2010 ================================================== Gopal Thapa, Son of Late Prabal Thapa, the then Treasurer, Co- operative Society for Employees Swalambi Sahkari Samity Ltd., F/97, Sainik Bazar, Main Road, Ranchi, Resident of Quarter No.- II/2, C.P.W.D., Airport Colony, P.O.-Hinoo, District- Ranchi, Jhakhand. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Smt. Sangita Sahi, Wife of Late Mani Kumar Sahi, Gatha Villa, Indrapuri, P.O. Keshi Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 09-08-2012 Heard Sri Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for complainant/opposite party no. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 01.04.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 456(C) of 2010. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the contents in the complaint petition, it is evident that accusation is civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out. He further submits that even no cause of action arose within the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41782 of 2010 (5) dt.09-08-2012 2 / 3 2 territorial jurisdiction at Patna. He submits that Co-operative Society for Employees Swalambi Sahkari Samity Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Society”) was running at Ranchi and petitioner at the relevant time was Treasurer of the Society and as such, complaint is not maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction at Patna. He further submits that only with a view to create jurisdiction of the Patna court, a false statement has been made in paragraph 9 of the complaint petition that accused persons arrived at the residence of the complainant at Patna and they abused her. Be that as it may, there is assertion in the complaint petition, showing commission of part of the occurrence at Patna and learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] , which pertains to an occurrence, which had taken place at Patna. So far as other ground is concerned i.e. it was a case of civil nature, the Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the issue. Prima facie, after going through the order of cognizance, the Court is satisfied that learned Magistrate has committed no error. The petition stands dismissed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41782 of 2010 (5) dt.09-08-2012 3 / 3 3 If so advised, the petitioner can take all the pleas before the court below, which have been taken in the present petition, at appropriate stage. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, 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.