Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26213 of 2010 (3) dt.10-10-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26213 of 2010 ====================================================== Madsudan Mandal & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the petitioners : Mr. Vikram Singh, advocate For the State : Mr. B.N.Pandey, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER --------- 3 10.10.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and, in my view, this petition can be disposed off on admission stage itself. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.2.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Tikapatti no.48/2009 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] and 3/ 4 of the Dyne Prohibition Act took the cognizance against the petitioners. On the basis of written report of the informant Manika Devi, Tikapatti P.S. case no.48/2009 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and 3/ 4 of the Dyne Prohibition Act. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and after due investigation, police submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the findings of the police and took cognizance for the offences under section 3/ 4 of the Dyne Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26213 of 2010 (3) dt.10-10-2012 Prohibition Act besides the offences of the Indian Penal Code. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that there was no material against the petitioners for taking cognizance of the offences under section 3/ 4 of the Dyne Prohibition Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the institution of Tikapatti P.S. case no.48/2009, the informant of the present case filed complaint case bearing Complaint case no. 1832/2009 for the same occurrence but in the complaint petition, she had, nowhere, even whispered about factum of calling her dyne. It is further contended by him that the aforesaid complaint was dismissed under section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended by him that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed error in taking cognizance for the offences under section 3/ 4 of the Dyne Prohibition Act. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order dated 20.2.2010 that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred several paragraphs of the case diary and on the basis of the aforesaid materials, he differed with the findings of the police. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any substance in this quashing petition and, accordingly, this petition stands disposed off on admission stage itself. However, the petitioners may raise their pleas before the trial court at appropriate stage and if they do so, trial court shall consider the pleas of the petitioners on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,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.