Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25471 of 2010 ================================================== 1. Sudhanshu Shekhar @ Manoj 2. Amitabh 3. Himanshu Shekhar @ Munna 4. Subharanshu Shekhar @ Nanu All sons of Pramod Kumar 5. Leela Devi W/O Pramod Kumar 6. Anita Devi W/O Sudhanshu Shekhar @ Manoj 7. Neetu Devi W/O Amitabh 8. Anuja Devi @ Pushpi D/O Pramod Kumar All are the resident of HI 17, Harmu Housing colony Ranchi, P.S Argora, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Anil Kumar Das, S/O Sri Angad Das, R/O- Bhabhua, Ward No. 6, P.O. & P.S. Bhabhua, Dist. Kaimur (Bhabhua), at present residing at police control room, Chandauli (U.P.) P.S. Chandauli, Dist. Chandauli (Uttar Pradesh) .... .... Opposite Party ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 08-08-2012 Heard Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Ajit Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Rajani Kant Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. Eight petitioners have approached this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 29.01.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) in G.R. Case No. 1308/2003, arising out of Bhabhua P. S. Case No. 353 of 2003/1082 (C) of 2003. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25471 of 2010 (5) dt.08-08-2012 2 / 6 2 By the said order, learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, had taken cognizance of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Opp. Party No. 2 was husband of petitioner no. 8. Earlier the Opp. Party No. 2 had tortured the petitioner no. 8 regarding dowry and as such, petitioner no. 8 was constrained to approach the police, alleging therein commission of offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against opposite party no. 2 and others. On the written complaint of the petitioner no. 8, an F.I.R., vide Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 207 of 2003 was registered on 05.08.2003 for the offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Opp. Party No. 2 & others. In the said case, police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against accused persons, including Opp. Party No. 2, and they have been put on trial. After the F.I.R. was filed against Opp. Party No. 2, in a malicious way, the Opp. Party No. 2 at belated stage on 22.12.2003 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1082(C) of 2003 against petitioner no. 8 and her family members for commission Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25471 of 2010 (5) dt.08-08-2012 3 / 6 3 of offences under [STATUTE] . The said complaint, on the same date, was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for its registration and investigation and as such, an F.I.R. as Bhabhua P. S. Case No. 253 of 2003 was registered on 22.12.2003 for offence under [STATUTE] . After registering the F.I.R. i.e. Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 253 of 2003, the police thoroughly investigated the case and during investigation, it was found that the Opp. Party No. 2/Complainant had made completely false complaint and as such, police on 31.07.2005 submitted final report, showing the case, as untrue. It was argued that despite the fact that final report was submitted in the year 2005, it was kept pending for a long time and thereafter, on 29.01.2010, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] against all the petitioners. It was submitted that since the allegation was found untrue and final report was submitted, the learned Magistrate, after expiry of several years, was not required to pass order of cognizance, that too by differing with the police report and accordingly, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25471 of 2010 (5) dt.08-08-2012 4 / 6 4 counsel for opposite party no. 2 have supported the impugned order. According to them, there is no error in the impugned order. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly, ‘Annexure 1’ i.e. F.I.R. of the present case, ‘Annexure 2’ i.e. final report submitted in the present case as well as ‘Annexure 3’ i.e. F.I.R. which was lodged against Opp. Party No. 2 and others by petitioner no. 8, disclosing commission of offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After going through the materials, it is evident that police, in the present case i.e. Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 253 of 2003 registered on the basis of complaint referred by the Magistrate, found the case untrue and final report was submitted, vide ‘Annexure 2’ of the petition. The final report was submitted in the year 2005, in which the informant appeared and after about five years from the date of submission of final report, the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance on 29.01.2010 differing with the police report. After going through the impugned order, it is evident that though learned Magistrate has passed order of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25471 of 2010 (5) dt.08-08-2012 5 / 6 5 cognizance differing with the police report, no reason has been assigned by the learned Magistrate for differing with the police report. Once in a police case, after investigation, police submits report, exonerating the accused, the said report may not be treated as a waste paper. Once report is submitted, it is required to be examine

Applicable IPC Section: 380

Statute Text:
Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft in a building, tent or vessel. Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.