Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9598 of 2011 ====================================================== Safi Ahmad Ansari & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 29-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In this case petitioners are challenging the order dated 20th December 2010 by which the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and 3(v)(x) of SC/ST Act. According to the FIR it appears that there is a land dispute and there is an allegation that the petitioner side wanted to capture the land which led to initiation of 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. On 7th June 2009, the petitioners along with others had forcibly cultivated the land and in that course the informant side were abused by his caste name also abused by mother and sister which led to lodging of FIR and ultimately the court has taken cognizance vide the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9598 of 2011 (2) dt.29-06-2012 2 / 3 2 lodged at the instance of Collector which is without justification. Another point that he has raised is that no case under SC/ST Act is made out and in support of his contention, he has relied on a judgment reported in 2010(2) BLJ 259 (Harihar Das v. State of Bihar) and stated that the order of cognizance does not disclose that the court has applied his mind. So far sending the complaint petition to the Police by the Collector is concerned, if the Police does not take any proper action then the informant has no other alternative but to approach the higher authority and the Collector has rightly sent the application of complainant to Police to take appropriate step in the matter. The 2nd point has been raised that it is not a case under the SC/ST Act, as alleged offence has not been committed in the public view but from the FIR cum-complaint petition it appears that these incidents had taken place in the open field and with regard to presence of other persons it will be subject to evidence brought by the informant. There is nothing in the FIR to show that there was none except the informant and the accused there and, as such, contention of counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in law as well as on fact. The judgment filed by petitioner is not applicable as in that the goat had entered into the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9598 of 2011 (2) dt.29-06-2012 3 / 3 3 field and was destroying the crop and the court found that there was no provocation from the side of petitioner of that case. So far taking cognizance by the Magistrate is concerned, it appears that the Court has recorded that he has examined the case diary and on that basis has taken cognizance. In the recent judgment in the case of Bhushan Kumar v. State [2012(2) PLJR 422], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for taking cognizance it should appear that the court has applied his judicial mind. From the order it appears that the court has acted upon FIR and the case diary. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the order. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed however, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge. Jay/- (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.