Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14975 of 2011 (5) dt.27-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14975 of 2011 ====================================================== Ajamer Khan And Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv. For the Opposite Party : M/s. Yogendra Prasad Sinha & Suresh Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. L.K.Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 27-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the opposite parties. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 9th February 2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 54 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance [STATUTE] petition it appears that the petitioners have been branded as land grabber and on the day of occurrence, accused persons came in a group and they destroyed the mustard crop. When the complainant tried to prohibit petitioners, respondent no.1 took out a country-made pistol and placed the same on his temple threatening to kill and petitioners asked them to go away from the field otherwise they will meet with dire consequences. Acceding to the allegation, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14975 of 2011 (5) dt.27-06-2012 complainant felt threatened as they not only abused but also assaulted. In the complaint petition, name of petitioner no.2 has also come as an active member of the group. The court below vide the impugned order, found the case prima facie correct and took cognizance, as aforesaid. Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is arising from civil dispute as already parties are litigating a civil case vide T.S.No. 482 of 2010 where the O.P. is the plaintiff. In the suit an injunction petition was filed which was rejected but at the appellate stage injunction was granted to the complainant (O.P.here). Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already constructed the house and are living there and for the same land number of cases have been filed, including Complaint Case No.2632 of 2010 where also similar type of complaint petition was filed but the same has been quashed by this Court in Cr.Misc.No. 13673 of 2010. Counsel for the petitioners submits that another case, vide Complaint Case No. 840 of 2011 has been dismissed by the court below as the court did not find any prima facie case against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that series of litigation are arising from the same land and the present case has been filed with mala fide. No such incident had taken place as they are in possession of the property as heir Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14975 of 2011 (5) dt.27-06-2012 and successor of original land holder. In contra, counsel for the O.P.No.2 has disputed the argument. He submitted that there are five segments of the same land and with regard to one portion of the land, this Court has quashed the proceeding but with regard to injunction matter, the appellate court has granted injunction and found prima facie case in favour of petitioners. Counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that they are land grabbers. They want to forcibly evict them. They not only threatened for dire consequences but also assaulted and abused the O.P. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, at this stage, this Court will not look into the defence of petitioners. This court does not find any error in the order impugned. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the points during the trial. Jay/- (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.