- (1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 12.06.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in G.R. No.578 of 2009 (T.R. No.391 of 2014) whereby and whereunder a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected.
(2.) On the basis of a written report of the informant Anita Pathak, Madhupur P.S. Case No.248 of 2009 was instituted on 09.12.2009 with the allegation that she is one of member of an organization known as "Society for advancement in education, Dehradun" and on 27.11.2009 one Bal Krishna Tiwari (the present petitioner) resident of Kanpur threatened her on telephone that he will not allow her to run the said society and if she intends to run the society, she will have to pay Rs.10,00,000/- and that on 03.12.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. he again came to her residence at Madhupur and misbehaved with her and conveyed her that he will get her college "Asia School of Engineering and Management" being run through the above society closed. It is also alleged that the said Bal Krishna Tiwary again came to her house on 05.12.2009 and misbehaved with her and extended threat that he will not allow to run her college.
(3.) It appears from the record that after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 384/504 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the court took cognizance of the offence whereafter the petitioner filed a petition for his discharge under Section 239 of the Code in the court below but the same was rejected vide order dated 16.10.2012 holding that on the basis of material available on record, I find prima facie case for framing of charge under Sections 384/504 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision being No.2 of 2013 before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar but the revision was also dismissed. Whereafter the present petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.882 of 2013 in this court which was remanded to the court below vide order dated 28.10.2013 with the direction to pass fresh order on discharge petition in accordance with law. It also appear that the court of learned Judicial Magistrate by order impugned considering the prima facie evidence and sufficiency of material to frame charge again rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge. Hence, this revision.;