Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8756 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Navratan Jhunjhunwala son of Sri Om Prakash Jhunjhunwal, resident of 703, 10-A Main Jaynagar, 4th Floor, P.S.-Jaynagar, Banglore-560011. 2. Nitesh Nahar, son of Sobha Chand Nahar, resident of 402 Abhiashek Plaza, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna 3. Arbind Kumar Jha, son of late Pitamber Jha, resident of Mayur Vihar Colony, Transport Nagar, P.S.-Agamkuan, District-Patna 4. Gopal sharma, son of late Shiv Bhagwan Sharma resident of Mirchai Gali, P.S.-Chowk Patna City, District-Patna. 5. Ajit Narayan Singh, Advocate, Bar Association Civil Court, Patna S/o Narsingh Narayan Singh resident of Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna 6. Deodeep Singh, Advocate son of late Raktu Singh, Bar Association Civil Court, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2. Rani Kumari, D/o Late Rajendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Dujra, Plot No. 125, Khata No. 23, P.S.-Budha Colony, Town and District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Adv Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 1-State : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 26-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.8.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna passed in Complaint Case No. 1624(C)/2010 for offences under [STATUTE] . From the complaint petition it appears that one Rani Kumari was contacted by accused No. 1 who is a Developer of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8756 of 2011 (3) dt.26-06-2012 2 / 3 2 Apartment and accused Nos. 7 and 8 who are brokers have approached the complainant on 4.9.2008 and after payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) entered into an agreement for sale and commitment was made to pay the rest amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. It appears from the complaint petition that the possession of the land was given on 2.12.2008. Accused persons have given a legal notice where it has been stated for execution of sale deed whereupon the complainant in reply asked to pay the rest amount. On 11.6.2010 the complainant while returning after meeting with her Advocate at Anta Ghat Kabarikhana, accused Nos. 1 to 6 stopped her and asked her to give the land for Rs. 15,00,000/-(fifteen lakhs) and when she objected then the accused persons have got her signature on the stamp paper where it has been recorded for acceptance of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (one crore thirty lakhs) and have also threatened for dire consequences. The counsel for the petitioners submits that no case is made out against any of the accused persons so much so that the parties have entered into an agreement and in pursuance thereof the complainant was required to return Rs. 5,00,000/-(five lakhs) but the same was not done by her. The complaint petition has disclosed that the some of accused persons are Advocates of Civil Court, Patna and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8756 of 2011 (3) dt.26-06-2012 3 / 3 3 complaint petition does not disclose any action done by the advocate petitioners. At the stage of the cognizance, the court has to see the prima facie case and to be satisfied with the allegation made in the complaint petition. The court below was not required to give elaborate reasons but to show that he has applied his mind. The matter of cognizance has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2012 (2) P.L.J.R. 423 where the Hon’ble Court has said that the Court while taking cognizance is not required to give elaborate reasons but it must show that while taking cognizance court has applied his judicial mind. It appears that the court below has applied his mind, exercised his power and passed the order. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points before the court below at the appropriate stage of the trial.. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.