Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49605 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Chandra Bhushan Singh, son of Late Brij Lal Singh. 2. Neelam Singh, wife of Chandra Bhushan Singh. Both are resident of Mohalla-Durgapur Goushala, Police Station and District-Katihar. 3. Md. Nazmul Haque, Munshi, Registry Office, Kaithar, son of Abdul Mazid, resident of village-Kewala, P.S. Pranpur, District-Katihar. 4. Ram Narayan Mahto, son of Tapeshwar Mahto, resident of Mohalla-Sharifganj, P.S. and District-Katihar. 5. Chhote Lal Sah, son of Rajendra Sah, resident of Mohalla-Goushala, P.S. Katihar, District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Ayodhya Sah, son of Late Munshi Sah, resident of Mohalla- Durgapur Laliyahi, P.S. Sahayak, Katihar, District-Katihar. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : M/s. Dhirendra Kumar Jha and Jibendra Mishra, Advocates. For the O.P. No.2 : M/s. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, P.K. Niogy and Anand Mishra, Advocates. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER --------------- 5 07-02-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 22.9.2008 passed in C.A. No.2704 of 2005 by the court of Sri Vipul Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katihar, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] against them. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49605 of 2008 (5) dt.07-02-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid complaint case no.2704 of 2005 filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Ram Ayodhya Sah, is the counter blast of Title (Mortgage) Suit No.109 of 2005 filed by the accused-petitioner no.2, Neelam Singh, on 6.10.2005 against the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the same has been filed only with a view to harass the petitioners. It has also been submitted that initially the complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no.2 was dismissed, on inquiry, under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 7.10.2006 but the said order was challenged by the complainant-opposite party no.2 in Criminal Revision No.192 of 2006, which was allowed and later on, through the impugned order dated 22.9.2008, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners without further inquiry into the matter. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.9.2008, it appears that the learned Magistrate 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 under [STATUTE] is made out and, accordingly, summoned the petitioners. If the order Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49605 of 2008 (5) dt.07-02-2012 3 / 3 3 passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the complaint petition is set aside by the revisional court with a direction to pass a fresh order, the Magistrate is not required to collect fresh materials rather the Magistrate may pass an order afresh on apprising the materials available on the record. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 for interference with the same in inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding filing of the aforesaid Complaint Case No.2704 of 2005 due to filing of the Title (Mortgage) Suit No.109 of 2005 by the petitioner no.2 earlier is concerned, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise the point at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S./- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.