Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25488 of 2010 (2) dt.09-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25488 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. PARO SINGH S/O LATE KEDAR SINGH 2. ANUJ KUMAR @ PAPPU SINGH S/O PARO SINGH 3. MINTU KUMAR S/O PARO SINGH ALL R/O VILLAGE- BARARA, P.S. NOORSARAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GAJRAJ KUMAR @ BARE SINGH S/O LATE DINKAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- BARARA, P.S. NOORSARAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Chandra, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Tiwari No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 2. 09.02.2012 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.04.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1286-C/2008 by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nalanda by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . 2. According to the complaint it appears that the petitioners came armed with gun and after threatening to kill the complainant one of the petitioner fired from his rifle though no injury was caused. There are further allegations that the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and snatched away gold chain, earring and rings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is nothing but a retaliation to the First Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25488 of 2010 (2) dt.09-02-2012 Information Report (Annexure-2) instituted at the instance of the petitioner no.2 about four months prior to filing of the complaint, alleging offences under [STATUTE] . in respect of which charge sheet was also submitted. 4. I find that the impugned order of cognizance has been passed on the basis of the statements of the complainant as well as five witnesses, and it was after due consideration of the materials on record that a prima facie case against the petitioners was found to have been made out. 5. As such I am not inclined to interfere in this matter at this stage and accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, 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.