Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31213 of 2010 ================================================== Paritosh Kumar, son of Sri Awdhesh Kumar, Resident of Village – Poawan, P.S. – Masaurhi, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deepak Kumar, son of Late Surendra Prasad Sah, Resident of – Lohapatti, P. S. –kotwali, Town + District – Bhagalpur .... ... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4. 10-09-2012 Heard Sri Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Rajesh Ranjan No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant/Opp. Party No. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order, which was passed long back in the year 2007 i.e. 07-06-2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in Kotwali P. S. Case No. 80 of 2005 (G.R. No. 309 of 2005). By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] against the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31213 of 2010 (4) dt.10-09-2012 2 / 4 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order of cognizance, submits that present case was filed maliciously against the petitioner due to the reason that initially the petitioner, in the capacity of Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, had taken step for initiating proceeding against Opp. Party No. 2 for violation of certain provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act. He has referred to Annexure ‘4’ to the petition, which is a copy of F.I.R., initiated on the basis of report submitted by the petitioner in his official capacity. In sum and substance, it was argued that the present case was maliciously filed and since it is a malicious prosecution, the Court may exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the same. Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the F.I.R., there was specific allegation against the petitioner and during investigation, accusation was corroborated and thereafter, police submitted charge-sheet. So far as case instituted as per instance of the petitioner is concerned, police after investigation submitted final report, meaning thereby that no one was forwarded to face trial. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31213 of 2010 (4) dt.10-09-2012 3 / 4 3 In reply, Sri Shukla submits that in that case, a protest petition was filed, which has been treated as complaint petition and complaint proceeding is still going on. Be that as it may, in the present case after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate, on the basis of case diary, passed order of cognizance. Prima facie, the present case was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. Perusal of F.I.R. specifically speaks regarding commission of offence. Moreover the said accusation was thoroughly investigated and during investigation, the allegation was found true and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted by the police. It is not a case, in which proceeding has been initiated on the basis of complaint petition and bringing two or three favourable witnesses. Since, there was statutory investigation and in the order impugned, there is no apparent illegality on the ground of filing an F.I.R. by the petitioner, which was not found true during investigation, the order of cognizance in the present case cannot be interfered. At least, at this stage, it would be difficult for this Court to interfere with the impugned order, that too while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised sparingly and in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31213 of 2010 (4) dt.10-09-2012 4 / 4 4 rarest of the rare cases. I do not find any ground to consider the case as exceptional or rarest of the rare cases, for interference. Moreover, the order impugned was passed long back in the year 2007. The petition stands dismissed. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 385

Statute Text:
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Putting or attempting to put in fear of injury, in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.