Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9475 of 2011 (4) dt.28-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9475 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Balak Chouhan Son Of Late Ramkomal Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 2. Rajendra Chouhan Son Of Late Ramkomal Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 3. Manoj Chouhan Son Of Shiv Balak Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 4. Ramnandan Chouhan Son Of Rajendra Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 5. Lakshmi Chouhan Son Of Rajendra Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 6. Pappu Chouhan Son Of Rajendra Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada 7. Balram Chouhan Son Of Shivbalak Chouhan Resident Of Village- Maluki, P.S. Pakribrawan, Dist.- Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K.Verma, Adv. Mr. S.P.Parasar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. N.K.Prasad, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 28-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 10th January 2011 passed in Cr.Revn.No. 44 of 2010 by which the court below has affirmed the order dated 25th January 2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada taking cognizance under [STATUTE] in Pakribrawan P.S.Case No. 152 of 2007. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9475 of 2011 (4) dt.28-06-2012 From the FIR it appears that the informant was thrashing paddy crop in his Khalihan when accused persons reached there and asked them to stop it on which an altercation took place in which the informant was badly assaulted. In the FIR, Police has labeled other Sections of the IPC except Section 307. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, examining the materials on record has taken cognizance under those Sections and added [STATUTE] . Same was challenged by the petitioners in Cr. Revn. No. 44 of 2010. The Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV vide order impugned rejected the application and affirmed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the order of the learned Sessions Judge are completely illegal and no sustainable in law as the FIR was lodged under the aforesaid Sections of IPC, except [STATUTE] So there was no justification for taking cognizance under [STATUTE] . Counsel for the State has controverted the argument and stated that he court has taken cognizance under right Sections of the IPC. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9475 of 2011 (4) dt.28-06-2012 it is well known proposition of law that the Magistrate can differ with the Police on the basis of materials on the record and no fault could be committed if the Magistrate has taken cognizance under proper Sections on the basis of materials brought during the investigation. From the record it appears that the Court has taken cognizance on the basis of materials collected during investigation and the Revisional court has dealt with elaborately to substantiate as to how [STATUTE] is made out. At this stage the court was required to see prima facie case only. It appears that the courts have not committed any error in law. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate petition at the time of framing of charge and the court will pass order in accordance with law. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.