Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13949 of 2012 Priyanka Gupta wife of Parmendra Kumar Gupta, Resident Of Village- Pothia, P.S.- Falka, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Seema Mishra W/O Dr. N.K. Jha, Nidan Nursing Home, Rajhata Binodpur, P.S. & District- Katihar .... .... Opposite Party/s CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ---------------------- 3 09-08-012 Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the complainant/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 dated 22.06.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Katihar in Complaint Case No. 956 of 2011 . By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing order of cognizance, submits that the present complaint petition was maliciously filed by the complainant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13949 of 2012 (3) dt.09-08-2012 2 / 4 2 only with a view to put pressure on the petitioner for not pursuing the complaint case, which was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Katihar i.e. Complaint Case No. 30 of 2011. It was submitted that since the petitioner due to the reason that the complainant despite charging for certain operation had not done the same, had filed a case before the District Consumer Forum for demanding Rs.1,95,000/- as compensation. He submits that in paragraph-5 of the present complaint petition, the complainant herself had admitted that on 30.04.2011 she had received notice from the Consumer Forum, which was filed by the petitioner. He submits that this admission of the complainant is sufficient to prove that the present complaint was filed maliciously and on this ground, the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the allegation made in the complaint petition that the petitioner was demanding extortion money from the complainant appears to be not believable and, as such, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned order. It has also been argued that against the complainant of the present case , her husband as well as her compounder , the petitioner’s uncle had filed one complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No.CA1552 of 2011. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13949 of 2012 (3) dt.09-08-2012 3 / 4 3 Sri N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant does not dispute the fact that in the complaint petition itself, the complainant has accepted that she had received notice from the Consumer Forum in a case instituted by the petitioner. However, he submits that content of complaint petition itself discloses offences, for which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Be that as it may, fact remains that a case and counter case was filed in between the parties. Moreover, the present complaint was filed after receiving notice from the consumer forum, which was filed by the petitioner. Apparently it appears that the present complaint was filed with a view to put pressure on the petitioner not to pursue the case before the consumer forum. Fact remains that even from the petitioner side of the present case, a case was filed against the complainant and others of the present case. In view of the fact that litigations in between the parties are going on , the Court is of the opinion that the complainant may not be allowed to pursue the criminal case for settling her other disputes and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that allowing the proceeding in the court below will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the court and, as such, order of cognizance dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13949 of 2012 (3) dt.09-08-2012 4 / 4 4 22.06.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in C.A. No.956 of 2011 is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 384

Statute Text:
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Extortion. Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.