Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9640 of 2010 ====================================================== Lalan Singh @ Lalan Prasad Singh S/O Late Ram Bilash Singh R/O Vill.- Bala Bigha, P.S.- Telhara, Distt.- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kumari Omprabha Devi, W/o Bidyarthi Shyamdeo Prasad, Incharge Headmaster Middle School, Telhara, P.S. Telhara, Distt. – Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 06-07-2012 Heard Sri Sachidanand Chaudhary, learned counsel, who was assisted by Mr. Lavkush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri Ansul, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of informant / opposite party no. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, in Telhara P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008, G.R. Case No. 1280 of 2008. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9640 of 2010 (3) dt.06-07-2012 2 / 8 2 argued that learned Magistrate has passed the order of cognizance in a mechanical manner. He submits that though Police after investigation had found the case under [STATUTE] . as true, the learned Magistrate, without assigning any reason, has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . He submits that while differing with the Police report, it was required on the part of the Magistrate to assign reason. Second ground for assailing the order of cognizance taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material showing commission of offence under [STATUTE] . His third ground for quashing of the order of cognizance is that the F.I.R. in this case against the petitioner was filed maliciously. He submits that petitioner being one of the members of Twenty Point Programme Enquiry Committee along with other members had conducted inspection in school. During inspection the informant of the present case and her husband, who was posted as ‘Chain Carrier’ at Ekangarsarai had tried to interfere with the discharge of official duty and also threatened the members. On that very allegation, an application was submitted by the members of the Twenty Point Programme Enquiry Committee to the Chairman of the Committee disclosing commission of offences, which was referred to Police, and as Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9640 of 2010 (3) dt.06-07-2012 3 / 8 3 such, an F.I.R. vide Telhara P.S. Case No. 75 of 2008 was registered on the same date, whereas, F.I.R. in the present case, against petitioner, was lodged subsequently, which is evident from number of the case. In the present case in which petitioner has been made accused, number of F.I.R. is Telhara P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in serious matters the learned Magistrate while issuing process is required to examine the materials and only after being satisfied with the materials processes can be directed to be issued. In support of his argument he has heavily relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 128 (M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others). He has specifically referred to paragraph no. 28 of the judgment. For just decision in the matter it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows: - “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9640 of 2010 (3) dt.06-07-2012 4 / 8 4 to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” On aforesaid grounds he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Ansul, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that informant / opposite party no. 2 at the relevant time was headmistress of the school and while Enquiry Committee of Twenty Point Programme was inspecting the school, on trivial issue, the petitioner had threatened the informant of the case for getting her suspended. For that, Rs. 5,000/- was demanded by the petitioner. Since she was being misbehaved, she telephonically called her husband, who subsequently arrived there, and even he was also threatened by the petitioner, and as such, written report was submitted before the Police and F.I.R. vide Telhara P.S. Case No. 76 of 2008, was registered on the same date. He submits that contents of t

Applicable IPC Section: 384

Statute Text:
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.