Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7484 of 2010 ====================================================== Md.Wakil Ahmad @ Bablu Ansari @ Vakil Ahmad, son of Late Quamruzzama, resident of mohalla-Line, Khankah Chowk, P.S.- Kishanganj, District-Kishanganj. …. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Ekbal @ Md. Rafique, son of Late-Ramjani @ Ramjan Ali, resient of Mohalla-Naya Toal, Phuwari Sharif, P.S.-Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Murlidhar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER 5. 15-05-2012 Petitioner has challenged order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Smt. Sacchi Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.2202(C) of 2009 whereby and whereunder learned lower court took cognizance of an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . and summoned the petitioner to face trial therefor. Md. Ekbal @ Md. Rafique had filed Complaint Petition No.2202(c) of 2002 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna showing date of occurrence as 11-12-2008 and disclosed the fact that an area of 1 Bigha 5 Kattha 6 Dhur lies at Mohiuddinpur which he had purchased through Sale Deed dated 28.04.1977 whereupon he had constructed a house. To earn his livelihood he -2- remains at Patna. Petitioner / accused Wakil Ahmad @ Babloo Ansari along with one Juber Akhtar Usmani contacted him and requested for letting the house on rent and accordingly, complainant obliged. The accused, to win confidence of the complainant took pain to look after the remaining area and was providing rupees fifteen thousand per year as an outcome from the aforesaid remaining area. Subsequently, the accused approached and said that the local inhabitants are not recognizing him as a caretaker and for that a power of attorney should be executed in his favour. Accordingly, accused persons got a power of attorney scribe and further taking advantage of illiteracy of complainant got his thumb impression affixed thereupon and accordingly, the document was registered before the registrar on 11-12-2008. Just thereafter, he came to know that some forgery has been committed therein, hence he got it cancelled on 12.12.2008 and the same was communicated to accused through registered speed post along with legal notice dated 23.12.2008. In July 2009 Md. Mustafa, nephew of complainant, informed that new constructions are being erected over the land. He immediately rushed and then he came to know that accused Md.Wakil Ahmad @ Bablu Ansari @ Vakil Ahmad had sold away the land. It has further been submitted that on 14.05.2009 at about 08:00 P.M. all the accused named therein -3- came at his residence at Phularisharif armed with deadly weapons, abused and assaulted him with fist and slaps and forcibly took away his LTI on paper. On the aforesaid complaint petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for transfer to the learned Magistrate under Section 192 of the Cr.P.C. for holding an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. during course of which complainant was examined on S.A., witnesses were examined and further by the order impugned the learned lower court had summoned the petitioner only to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] which happens to be the subject matter of instant petition. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that whatever allegation has been attributed against the petitioner all are palpably false and fabricated. Then, submitted that actually petitioner was entrusted by the complainant to sale the land and for that purpose power of attorney was executed in his favour, on the basis of which he had sold away the land on behalf of complainant and the amounts were paid to the complainant otherwise there was no necessity to incorporate in the complaint petition that people of the locality are not recognizing the petitioner as caretaker when there happens to be inter se relationship as an landlord and tenant. The -4- aforesaid theme alone is sufficient to demolish the whole prosecution version. Then submitted that in likewise manner it is also improbable to believe that petitioner along with others will come from Kishanganj to the place of complainant at Phulwarisharif, Patna and will indulge in criminal activities as alleged. Then submitted that whatever allegation happens to be, that gives civil dispute. The aforesaid theme is further strengthen from the fact that the complainant himself had filed Title Suit No.23 of 2009 against the petitioner and others which is pending before the competent court. So submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is not justified. At the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2 has resisted the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner and submitted that presence of petitioner happens to be admitted one. The creation of power of attorney on 11.12.2008 and its cancellation on the next day i.e. on 12.12.2008 is suggestive of the fact that the complainant was not at all ready to entrust the accused for the purpose of disposing of the land and as soon as acknowledge the nefarious activity of accused, got the power of attorney rescind. It is further submitted that from para-7 of the petition it is evident that there is admission on the part of petitioner that he had sold land in favour of Jakia Parveen and has -5- kept the entire consideration amount which now he wants to pay the complainant. Therefore, the sections whereunder cognizance has been taken is apparent from own admission of the petitioner. Learned Additional P.P. followed the argument raised on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and submitt

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.