Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.33554 of 2010 ====================================================== Urmila Devi, wife of Vikarma Singh, resident of village-Bairiya, P.S. Inarawa, District-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Radha Patel, S/o Ganesh Patel 3. Most. Meera, W/o Late Bannhu Patel 4. Rameshwar Patel, S/o Siyaram Patel 5. Shambhu Patel, S/o Late Dhanpat Patel All resident of village-Bairiya, P.S. Inarawa, District-West Champaran 6. Dhruv Patel, S/o Bihari Patel, resident of village-Khamiya, P.S. Inarawa, District-West Champaran .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 02. 18-04-2012 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar No. 1 for the petitioner and Mr. Murlidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by Sri A.K. Verma, learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby the Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2010, preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable and the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by Sri P.C. Verma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 2790 of 2009, whereby process has been issued against the accused under Section 344 has been upheld. It is the contention of the petitioner that although the case was instituted setting out allegations constituting offence Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33554 of 2010 (2) dt.18-04-2012 2 punishable under [STATUTE] but the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah finding a prima facie case under [STATUTE] has issued process to the accused by the order dated 14.05.2010. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order insofar as the learned Magistrate had not issued process for offence punishable under [STATUTE] , preferred the revision application giving rise to Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 03.06.2010 even while dismissing the revision application holding the same not maintainable, has afforded opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence before charge and to raise all the issues at the said stage substantiating the contention that prima facie case punishable under Section 384, 376 and 328 is also made out against the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the complainant does have an opportunity of raising all these issues at the stage of framing of charge to satisfy the learned Magistrate that the materials were sufficient to charge the accused also for offence punishable under [STATUTE] and that the Code of Criminal Procedure also amply empowers the learned Magistrate to take an appropriate decision Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33554 of 2010 (2) dt.18-04-2012 3 in this regard but the dismissal of the revision application by the learned Sessions Judge holding the same not maintainable may prejudice the claim of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the materials on record as also taking note of the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, this application is disposed of in the light of liberty granted to the petitioner by the learned Revisional court of raising all his issues before the trial court, at the stage of framing of charge and which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate and disposed of in accordance with law. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 342

Statute Text:
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully confining any person. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.