In an application filed before the Patna High Court against an order dated 02-11-2022 by the SDJM, Raxaul at Motihari, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 307, and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava quashed the impugned order.
The petitioners with other co-accused persons allegedly arrived at the informant’s house and subjected him to abusive and filthy language. Petitioner 1 threatened the informant not to proceed with the registration of land purchased from one owner unless a ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid. All the accused persons had also allegedly physically assaulted the informant and forcibly obtained his signatures on a blank sheet of paper.
The petitioners submitted that the police had submitted a final form stating that the case was untrue and had also recommended proceedings under Section 182/211 of the IPC against the informant. It was also mentioned that in an order dated 28-06-2022 by the SDJM, the final report was accepted and a direction was given to open an official complaint against the informant. However, subsequently the impugned order was passed by which cognizance was taken and summons were issued against the petitioners.
Considering both orders, the Court found a glaring illegality in the impugned order and stated that the Magistrate was not legally permitted to review the order dated 28-06-2022, whereby the final form by the police was already accepted and a direction was given for opening of official complaint under Section 182 and 211 of IPC, which was never challenged and attained finality.
The Court concluded that the impugned order was passed in contravention of law as it amounted to a review of an earlier order and thus, the impugned order was quashed while allowing the application.
