Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40754 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40754 of 2008 ====================================================== Birendra Mohan @ Gorakh Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.P. Bhartee For the State : Mr. Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 15-02-2012 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 30.1.2008 passed in Danapur P.S. case No. 767 of 2006 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, taking the cognizance of the defence under [STATUTE] . Against the accused- petitioners. It appears that on the basis of the written report of Opposite party No.2 N.K. Srivastava, Danapue P.S. case No. 367 of 2006 was instituted under [STATUTE] on 3.12.2006 against the accused-petitioner. After submission of the charge-sheet by the police the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur on perusal of the case diary and charge-sheet took cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40754 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 through order dated 30.1.2008. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was tenant in the premises of Opposite party no.2. Due to harassing attitude of Opposite party No.2 and his wife, thepetitioner filed Title Suit No. 437 of 2006 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna for declaring him bonafide tenant and also filed injunction petition under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC on 30.1.2006. After receiving the notice on the suit and the injunction petition the Opposite party no.2 with ill motive lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner with false and concocted story only to harass, in which petitioner has been summoned through the impugned order. As such the impugned order is counter blast of Title Suit No. 437 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the Opposite party no.2. The impugned order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the case diary and the charge-sheet arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under [STATUTE] is made out. Apparently there is no illegality amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly this application is dismissed. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of defence is concerned, he is at liberty to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40754 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 raise the defence in trial Court at appropriate stage. Arun Kumar/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 327

Statute Text:
Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or a valuable security, or to constrain to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer, or from any person interested in the sufferer, any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything which is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.