Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24488 of 2009 ========================================================== = Ram Krishna Poddar, S/O-Late Ram Sharan Poddar, R/O-Village Kaithma, P.O.- Badalpura, P.S.-Begusarai Mufassil, District-Begusarai, the then S.D.P.O., Manihari, District-Katihar, presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Amar Nath Choubey, S/O-Gupteshwar Nath Choubey, R/O-Village Soharadangi, P.S.-Manihari, District-Katihar .... .... Opposite Parties. ========================================================== = Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Pandey (Sr. Advocate) M/S Jaganath Singh Pramod Kr. Singh For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Mr. Rana Pratap Singh For the State :- Mr. Amitesh Kumar (A.P.P.) ========================================================== = CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) H.K. Srivastava, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Krishna Poddar who is an accused in Complaint Case No. 943 of 2007 for quashing the order dated 07.06.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 943 of 2007 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] ordered to issue summons against petitioner and four other accused persons for procuring their Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24488 of 2009 dt.15-01-2012 2 2 attendance to face trial in the above stated case. 2. The brief fact which lies to file this quashing petition is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Amar Nath Choubey filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 943 of 2007 on 26.04.2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar alleging therein that on 02.11.2005, petitioner along with other co-accused, with conspiracy to each other and by way of their rangdari fully aware that they are public servant with an intention to collect money from big farmers of their jurisdiction taking the advantage of a case registered as Korha P.S. Case No. 157 of 2005 under [STATUTE] , came at the house of Opposite Party No. 2 and demanded fifty thousand cash by way of their rangdari. The father of Opposite Party No. 2 refused to pay the above stated amount as there was no case pending against him or his family members but petitioner along with co-accused Raj Kishore Singh., the then Sub Inspector of Manihari Police Station and co-accused A.P.Jha, the then Inspector of Manihari Police Station with conspiracy to each other made a seizure list of diesel showing that the same was theft article though the full brother of Opposite Party No. 2 had produced the receipts for the same and the same was recorded by the informant of Manihari P.S. Case No. 119 of 2005 in his seizure list and furthermore, on the same day accused no. 1 Raj Kishore Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24488 of 2009 dt.15-01-2012 3 3 Singh lodged the Manihari P.S. Case No. 120 of 2005 under Sections 25 (1-B) A/26 of the Arms Act against the Opposite Party No. 2 though nothing had been recovered either from possession of Opposite Party No. 2 or from his house on 02.11.2005. The aforesaid first information report of Manihari P.S. Case No. 120 of 2005 was put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar on 04.11.2005. The full brother of Opposite Party No. 2 as well as his father requested the petitioner and others not to register false case against Opposite Party No. 2 and petitioner as well as co- accused A.P. Jha took rupees forty thousand from the father of Opposite Party No. 2 giving assurance to him that no case would be instituted against the Opposite Party No. 2. The full brother of Opposite Party No. 2 sent several applications to Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Hon’ble the Chief Minister of Bihar but Opposite Party No. 6, namely, Manohar Pd. Singh, the then Superintendent of Police, Katihar without spot verification found the case true in his supervision note. It is further alleged that by the order of the Hon’ble the Chief Minister, one Deputy Superintendent of Police, namely, Sri Binay Kumar Choudhary supervised the case and found that Manihari P.S. Case No. 120 of 2005 was falsely registered against Opposite Party No. 2 and nothing had been recovered from possession of Opposite Party No. 2. It has further been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24488 of 2009 dt.15-01-2012 4 4 alleged by the Opposite Party No. 2 that the police officials by misusing their office not only took rupees forty thousand but also lodged false cases against Opposite Party No. 2 as well as his full brother. The Opposite Party No. 2 sent an advocate notice for grant of sanction after release from judicial custody but no order was passed on his petition and, accordingly, he filed the above stated complaint case. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar registered the aforesaid complaint case and kept the same in his own file and directed the Opposite Party No. 2 to remain present in the court for his statement on S.A. On 28.05.2007, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar recorded the statement of Opposite Party No. 2 on S..A and fixed the case for enquiry. On 15.06.2007, a petition on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar praying therein to transfer the case to another court for enquiry as the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was lying vacant but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/C rejected the aforesaid petition and called for a report from Superintendent of Police, Katihar and also directed the Opposite Party No. 2 to file copy of petition of complaint but the aforesaid case was adjourned on several dates and lastly, on 14.12.2007, learned Chief

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.