Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17856 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17856 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Uttim Bhagat 2. Sudama Bhagat 3. Ram Raj Bhagat 4. Radha Bhagat, all sons of late Musa Bhagat, resident of Village- Chauraon, P.S. Kuchai-Kot, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Hira Baitha, son of late Badri Baitha, resident of Village-Chauraon, P.S. Kuchai Kot, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat Mr. Upendra Yadav, Advocates. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 06-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.6.2010 passed in S.C. and S.T. P.S. Case No.111 of 2009, correspondent to G.R. No.505 of 2009, Tr. No.3705 of 2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj by which he took cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] and section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. From the First Information Report it appears that on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17856 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2012 3.2.2009 the informant was not in a position to work in the agriculture filed of the petitioner due to his illness. It has been alleged that petitioners went to the place of informant, on refusal to work, petitioners abused the informant and his family members by taking their caste name. It has been further alleged that they also assaulted the informant and tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fact that has been mentioned in the First Information Report is not the real fact but during investigation it was found that this First Information Report has been lodged due to property dispute. He has further submitted that during investigation by police even the Chaukidar of the village did not support the version of the informant, other persons also who were examined by the police did not support the case of the informant. It is completely a false and concocted case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance the court below was not required to examine the fact meticulously rather court was to be satisfied about prima facie case. The court below has not committed any error in taking cognizance. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17856 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2012 Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that prima facie case is made out from the narration of the First Information Report and it can not be said that the court below has wrongly taken cognizance. This Court does not find any merit in this application. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage of trial. Vinay/- (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.