Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10061 of 2011 (2) dt.04-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10061 of 2011 ====================================================== Radha Mohan Singh son of Shri Raja Ram Singh, resident of village- Bangauti, PS-Chouri, District-Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh and Mr. Nand Lal Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 04-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.1.2011 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that Santosh Kumar Singh who is the son of S.D.O. has ordered to cut the tree and accordingly, the cutters were cutting the tree. In the F.I.R. the name of three persons (1) Santosh Kumar Singh, (2) Radha Mohan Singh and (3) Raja Ram Singh have been made and the allegation has been made that they were stated cutting the tree. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the tree was standing in the private land, it was not in the Government land and has wrongly been shown the tree was standing on the Government land and no case under [STATUTE] . is made Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10061 of 2011 (2) dt.04-07-2012 out. He has further submitted that though three persons have been named in the F.I.R. but the Police peculiarly has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner and left out two persons and the court below has accepted the charge-sheet and took cognizance against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on Annexures 3 and 4 of the petition. This Court at this stage is not examining the merit of case as such this Court does not find any error in the order of cognizance. However liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the points before the court below at the time of framing of charge and the court below will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition is disposed. Mahesh/- (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.