Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24743 of 2010 ================================================== Surendra Mahto, son of Late Laxmi Mahto, Resident of village – Pandaul, Police Station – Pandaul, District – Madhubani. At present District Mining Officer, Rohtas, Police Station – Sasaram (T), District – Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7. 10-10-2012 Heard Md. Ashraf Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time, posted as District Mining Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an F.I.R., vide Sasaram (M) P. S. Case No. 478 of 2010, registered for the offence under Section 419, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 4/40 of the Bihar Mining Rules, 1972. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to lodging of this F.I.R., at the instance Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24743 of 2010 (7) dt.10-10-2012 2 / 3 2 of petitioner, an F.I.R. was lodged against officials of the Irrigation Department for offences under [STATUTE] and Rule 4/40 of Bihar Mining Rules, 1972. The said F.I.R. was got registered on 21-05-2010 and in retaliation, at the instance of Sub- Divisional Officer, Mining Irrigation Department, Sone Canal (Dehri), the present F.I.R. was lodged against the District Mining Officer, Rohtas and others. On this ground alone, it has been prayed to set aside the F.I.R. In this case, earlier time was granted to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor to get instruction regarding status of the case. On instruction, Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that investigation is still pending. In view of the fact and on perusal of the F.I.R., the Court is of the opinion that while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, same may not be interfered with, due to the simple reason that complaint in the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offences. However, keeping in view the fact that investigation is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24743 of 2010 (7) dt.10-10-2012 3 / 3 3 continuing, even after more than two years from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and the fact that petitioner is in Government job, which has been indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument, it is desirable to direct the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas to take all steps, so that investigation in the case may come to an end at an early date. With above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Anay (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.