Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.205 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Zahir Ansari son of Late Wali Mohammed, resident of Village- Mohalbari, PS-Dagarua, District-Purnea. 2. Tanjeem Ansari son of Zahir Ansari, resident of Village-Mohalbari, PS- Dagarua, District-Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sunaina Devi Widow of Late Fakeer Chand Bhagat, Resident of Village- Mohalwari, PS-Dagarua, District-Purnea. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 20-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 4.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Purnea in Cr. Rev. No. 133 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the court below has rejected the revision application. The present case is arising from a case lodged by one Sunaina Devi which has been registered as Sadar (Dagaura) P.S. Case No. 180 of 2009 for offences under [STATUTE] . 3. In the narration of the fact it has been alleged that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.205 of 2011 (3) dt.20-09-2012 2 / 5 2 on 3.5.2009 Zaheer Ansari was poring water of Badhana on land of the complainant and when she objected, Zaheer Ansari started abusive language against complainant and called his son namely, Tanjeem Ansari, came at the door of informant, started hurling abuses, called her Buddhi, dragged her out from her room, pushed her in the ground and badly assaulted her. It has further been alleged that the complainant had received injury on her head and body and alleged that Tanjeem Ansari snatched away Rs. 1,125/-, leaving the place of occurrence. Tanjeem Ansari, petitioner No. 2 claimed, nothing would happen to them as his mother was member of Panchayat Samittee. 4. It appears from the record that after the cognizance, petitioners filed an application for their discharge and the court of Magistrate vide order dated 7.2.2010 allowed the discharge petition, found the case to be a malicious prosecution and a counter blast to the complaint petition filed by the accused petitioners. This order was challenge before the Sessions court in Cr. Rev. No. 76 of 2010 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.2.2010 remanded the matter to the Magistrate. On remand, the Magistrate again considered the discharge application, rejected the same vide order dated 23.3.2010 and found sufficient materials against the petitioners Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.205 of 2011 (3) dt.20-09-2012 3 / 5 3 and asked petitioners to remain present for framing of the charge. This order was challenge before the Sessions court vide Cr. Rev. No. 133 of 2010 and the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.11.2010 rejected the revision application as the Sessions court found the subsequent order passed by the Magistrate to be legal and refused to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate concerned. While passing the order learned Additional Sessions Judge has perused several paragraphs of the case diary, found the prosecutrix and her witnesses supported her case and accordingly, rejected the same. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the court below suffers from the illegality as the court below has refused to consider of being a malicious prosecution as earlier to filing of the case by the prosecutrix, petitioners have filed the complaint petition against the complainant. He further submits that the order of remand that was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was also illegal as the Additional Sessions Judge had not passed specific order, of quashing the order passed by the Magistrate. He further submits that the Sessions court in earlier order could have remanded the matter provided he would have quashed earlier order of the Magistrate discharging petitioners and as such, the present case is suffering from that illegality and error Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.205 of 2011 (3) dt.20-09-2012 4 / 5 4 cannot be cured by passing of the subsequent order. 6. The counsel for the State has submitted that on earlier occasion the Magistrate had gone beyond the jurisdiction as he was not required to conduct the mini trial, he was only to see strong suspicion and the Additional Sessions Judge had rightly remanded back the matter to the Magistrate. The counsel for the State further submits that now the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the earlier order of remand passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 7. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge as the petitioner after passing the subsequent order of the Magistrate cannot be allowed to challenge the earlier order of remand passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. If petitioner had any grievance against the remand order, he could have moved before this Court earlier and now at this present juncture this Court has to see, whether the present order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge suffers from any illegality. The court while passing the impugned order has considered several paragraphs of the case diary and prima facie found, the allegation made by the complainant is corroborated from the facts mentioned therein.At this stage,the court below was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.205 of 2011 (3) dt.20-09-2012 5 / 5 5 not required to see the defence of the petitioner and was not required to examine the materials meticulously that have come during the investigation. 8. This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismis

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.