Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16291 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16291 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bhimshankar Prasad S/O Late Nemdhari Lal R/O Ward No. 13, P.S. Supaul, Distt. Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anuradha Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 17-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been field for quashing the order dated 12.7.2006 passed in G.R. Case No.100 of 2005, arising out of Supaul P.S. Case No.15 of 2005 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under sections 323, 504, 452 and 380 of the Indian penal Code. From the First Information Report it appears that there was a fight and hurling of abuses between both the parties which led to assault from both sides. The informant has received head injury and blood was started oozing out. When brother of the informant came forward to save him he was also assaulted. Allegation has been that on the direction Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16291 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 of Bhimshankar Prasad they entered into the house and took away one box containing cash of Rs.5,000/-. It appears that this incident has given two police cases, namely, Supaul P.S. Case No.15 of 2005 for offences under sections 147, 148, 379, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian penal Code and Supaul P.S. Case No.14 of 2005 for the offences under [STATUTE] . The court below has taken cognizance in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No.15 of 2005 for offences under sections 323, 504, 452 and 380 of the Indian penal code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below while taking cognizance has referred paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary even if they are taken to be true no offences under [STATUTE] is made out so much so that witnesses have not disclosed the involvement of the lady who is daughter of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has refuted the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that only certain paragraph of the case diary is not required to be seen but whole of the case dairy Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16291 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 including the First Information Report has to be looked into then it will be found that the court has not committed any error in takeing cognizance. Having considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, at this stage this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below and if any application is filed the court below will examine all materials i.e. First Information Report and the evidence on record by the police particularly paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary. This Court does not find any merit in this application With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.