Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42806 of 2009 ====================================================== Sadanand Yadav, Son of Late Ayodhi Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village – Dinapatti Pararia, Police Station and District – Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Bhulo Devi, Wife of Raj Kumar Sah, Resident of Village – Dinapatti, Pararia, Police Station and District – Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 21-03-2012 Heard Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.N. Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 09.09.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Cr. Revision No. 115 of 2008. By the said order the learned Revisional Court quashed part of the order of cognizance dated 05.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Madhepura, in Complaint Case No. 837 of 2007. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry had taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42806 of 2009 (2) dt.21-03-2012 2 / 3 2 against all the six accused persons who were arrayed as accused in the complaint petition. However, he had further taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] against the petitioner. The said order was assailed by the complainant before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court was of the opinion that on the basis of materials available on record there was a case for offence under [STATUTE] instead of offence under [STATUTE] and the learned Revisional Court remitted back the matter to the Court below to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the present petition the petitioner has not brought on record any order as to whether after the matter was remitted back by the Revisional Court the learned Magistrate has passed fresh order or not. It was submitted by Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the basis of evidence and materials available on record no case under [STATUTE] is made out and the learned Revisional Court has committed serious error by observing and remitting back the matter to the learned Magistrate. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the order passed by the Revisional Court. He submits that on the basis of averment made in the complaint petition itself there is specific Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42806 of 2009 (2) dt.21-03-2012 3 / 3 3 case of commission of offence under [STATUTE] . Be that as it may, for this Court it would not be appropriate to record specific finding regarding application of offences as claimed by either parties. This matter can be well decided by the Court below itself. After going through the order of the Revisional court, I do not find any error or defect in the Revisional Court’s order. It is left open to the learned Magistrate to decide the issue. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.