Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38350 of 2008 1. Baijnath Singh, son of late Jai Narayan Singh. 2. Raghav Singh, son of Ramayan Singh. 3. Dharam Nath Singh, son of Sudisht Singh. All resident of village-Alapur, P.S. Pachrukhi, District- Siwan. …………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Radhey Shyam Choudhary, son of late Awadh Bihari Choudhary, resident of Mohalla-Jatahi Pokhara, P.S. Chapra Town, District-Chapra (Saran). …………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 4. 16.1.2012. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. D. Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shambhu Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra) in U.T. No.82 of 2008/Complaint Case No.1846 of 1999, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act and also Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that initially on the basis of the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2, Radhey Shyam Choudhary, as sent under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Hajipur SC/ST P.S. Case No.88 of 1997 was registered and the police on investigation submitted the final form. Thereafter, the protest petition filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 was treated as Complaint Case No.1846 of 1999 and on inquiry the complaint petition was dismissed on 4.12.2004. The opposite party no.2 challenged the aforesaid order dated 4.12.2004 in Criminal Revision No.315 of 2005 which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saran (Chapra). Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra), without further inquiry summoned the accused-petitioners through the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is illegal. Perused the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 from which it appears that earlier on 4.12.2004, the complaint petition 3 of the complainant-opposite party no.2, numbered as Complaint Case No.1846 of 1999, was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the order dated 4.12.2004, the complainant-opposite party no.2 preferred the Criminal Revision No.315 of 2005 and the same was allowed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran (Chapra) with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order. Thereafter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra), on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant- opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses, as recorded in course of inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case for the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also Section 27 of the Arms Act is made out against the accused- petitioners and, accordingly, summoned the accused-petitioners through the impugned order dated 23.12.2006. It is no doubt that after allowing the Criminal Revision No.315 of 2005, as filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against the order dated 4.12.2004 dismissing the Complaint Case No.1846 of 1999, by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran (Chapra) with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran 4 (Chapra) to pass a fresh order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra) had no option but to make further inquiry. In the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra) on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses, as recorded in course of inquiry, summoned the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Sections 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also Section 27 of the Arms Act. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran (Chapra) in U.T. No.82 of 2008/Complaint Case No.1846 of 1999, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise the points, as raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial in the court below. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 384

Statute Text:
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.