PATNA, India, Nov. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Nov. 3:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2018 in connection with Complaint Case No.1054 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Nawada, under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah, on 26.09.2016. It was alleged that on 25.09.2016 at about 11 A.M., the accused persons came to his brick kiln claiming to be men of Ranveer Sena and demanded 5,00,000 as rangdari (extortion). rs On his protest, petitioner no. 2 allegedly caught hold of his collar, and petitioner no. 3 placed a pistol on him, threatening to kill him. It was further alleged that petitioner no. 1 forcibly took rs 3,00,000 from the complainant and while fleeing, petitioner no. 3 fired at him, which, however, did not hit. The informant also stated that when he approached the local police, his complaint was not registered, and he was advised to file a complaint case. Consequently, Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2016 was instituted under Sections 386, 387, 452, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned court below took cognizance under Section 384 IPC vide order dated 20.09.2018 and issued summons against all the three accused persons, who are father and sons.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity and a pending monetary dispute with the informant. The allegations in the complaint are wholly concocted and improbable. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioners and the complainant were in good relationship, the petitioners had given a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant for running a brick kiln. The complainant with an intention not to return back the said money has implicated the petitioners in a false case on the allegation that the petitioners belong to a banned organization and had also on the point of pistol extorted a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Learned counsel further submitted that for realization of Rs. 5 lacs along with interest, the petitioners have already filed a Money Suit No. 09 of 2017. By giving criminal cloak to the dispute which is purely civil in nature, the petitioners are facing prosecution which is unwarranted and would amount to abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that notices vide order dated 28.04.2025 were issued upon the opposite party no.2 and it has already been served upon opposite party no.2, as it would appear from the report submitted before this Court by the learned District Court. The opposite party no.2 despite of service of notice has remained unrepresented.

6. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners from the face of the complaint which does not call for any interference with the order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2018 based on materials.

7. Heard the parties.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM3ODE4MSMyMDE4IzEjTg==-47pl00DXSpo=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.