Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4997 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Mona, son of Md.Arife Hussain @ Sona, resident of Village + Post & P.S.-Karai Parsuray,Dist.-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md.Ibrahim, son of Late Abul Mian, resident of village & Post & P.S.- Karay Parsuray(Hilsa),Dist.-Nalanda .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 3 04-10-2012 Heard Sri Ram Naresh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 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 16.01.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa, Nalanda in Hilsa P.S. Case No.265 of 2006, G.R. No.869 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] differing with the police report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, no material was found against the petitioner and, as such, final report was submitted and the Investigating Officer also Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4997 of 2011 (3) dt.04-10-2012 2 / 2 2 prayed for prosecuting the informant for the offence under [STATUTE] . However, the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason has passed order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-4 to the petition, which is photo copy of the certified copy of statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the order impugned, it is evident that the learned Magistrate, while differing with the police report, has indicated succinctly reason for differing with the police report. He has referred to certain paragraphs of the case diary and also statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prima facie, I do not find any ground for interference with the order of cognizance. The petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 211

Statute Text:
Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. False charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.