Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35567 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Maheshwar Choudhary 2. Naresh Choudhary @ Naresh Prasad Choudhary 3. Dhananjay Choudhary 4. Sanjay Choudhary 5. Praduman Choudhary 6. Guddi Devi @ Archana Devi 7. Rekha Devi 8. Anita Devi .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bibhas Prasad Singh .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 13-09-2012 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia arising out of Gopalpur P. S. Case No. 136/2008 by which cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are alleged for making demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ransom to allow the informant to fill earth over the disputed land. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35567 of 2009 (3) dt.13-09-2012 2 T.S. no. 30/2002 in the court of Munsif, Naugachia was pending in between petitioner no.1 and vendor of the informant for the land in question. Petitioner no.2 is full brother of petitioner no.1. Petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are sons of petitioner no.1. Petitioner nos. 6, 7 and 8 are wives of petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Photostate copy of the plaint is annexed with this quashing petition to corroborate the submission. It is admitted case of the parities that informant purchased the disputed land from defendants of T.S.no.30/02 during its pendency so, he acquired no interest in the property. If it would have been a simple case of demand of ransom that could be accepted for any purpose including cognizance but if the same is alleged against persons having interest over the dispute land and have claimed the same by filing title suit, demand never can be accepted for prima facie constituting offence for demand of ransom even. It is said that informant is a practicing lawyer of the local Civil Court and only has misused his position and influence for creating such evidence, appears apparent. If that (allegation) is corroborated by several witnesses that further goes against the informant in creating false evidence. In the discussed facts and circumstances of the case, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35567 of 2009 (3) dt.13-09-2012 3 application is allowed, impugned order dated 2.6.2009 is hereby quashed. A.I./- (Mandhata Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 147

Statute Text:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.