Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8437 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Radha Nand Gupta S/O Late Sukhdeo Shah 2. Amar Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta 3. Anjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Both sons of Radha Nand Gupta, All residents of Mohalla Gudri Bazar Chowk, Ward No.7, P.S. + Town+ District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Subodh Kumar Prasad S/O Sri Vishwanath Prasad, r/o Mohalla- Gudri Bazar Chowk, Ward No.7, P.S. Samastipur, Town + District-Samastipur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 4 13-07-2012 Heard Sri Pushkar Narain Shahi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Binod Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.08.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court no.V, Samastipur in Cr. Revision No.126 of 2007. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition, which was preferred against the order of cognizance, which was passed on 07.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, in this case, F.I.R. was lodged. However, during the investigation, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8437 of 2010 (4) dt.13-07-2012 2 / 2 2 allegation was found false and malicious and, as such, the Investigating Agency had recommended prosecution against the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 for the offence under [STATUTE] . However, on protest, complaint case was initiated and thereafter order of cognizance has been passed. He submits that there is no material on record showing complicity of the petitioners. Keeping in view the fact that the order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2006 and this Court was inclined not to interfere with the order of cognizance, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition, at the appropriate stage. Prayer is allowed. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as indicated above. However, if at the appropriate stage, such petition is filed by the petitioners before the court below, the learned court below without being prejudiced with this order may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 211

Statute Text:
Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. False charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.