Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35278 of 2010 ====================================================== Sudhir Chandra Rai, son of Sri Dinanath Rai, resident of village-Dudhipatti, P.O. & P.S.-Simari, District-Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Bhojpur 3. Assistant Mining Officer, Bhojpur, Ara .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 02. 08-05-2012 Heard Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Shashi Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3. The petitioner has questioned the entire proceedings arising from Simari P.S. Case No. 12 of 2004. G.R. No. 94 of 2004 including the order dated 19.07.2005 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and Rule 40 and 26 of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 1972. The F.I.R. in question had been instituted with the allegation that the accused persons named in the F.I.R. were running their brick kiln without permission and without seeking any permit from the competent authority as also without Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35278 of 2010 (2) dt.08-05-2012 2 depositing the licence fee for running their brick kiln industry. It is not in dispute rather admitted between the parties that the petitioner has since cleared all the dues and has also paid interest for the delay occasioned in depositing of the licence fee and a certificate to that effect dated 20.08.2007 bearing Memo No. 734, has been issued, copy whereof is placed at Annexure-2 of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged being compoundable and the shortcomings whatsoever having since been removed by the petitioner, it would be in interest of justice that the proceedings be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 in which the position is admitted. It is stated that the Department has no grievance against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to an order dated 02.04.2012 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 5854 of 2011, submits that out of the four accused, three of them had approached this Court through the aforesaid application and a Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2012, considering the circumstances has been pleased to allow the application and the proceedings have been quashed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35278 of 2010 (2) dt.08-05-2012 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record as also considering the circumstances that the offence is compoundable and taking into consideration the Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 5854 of 2011, this application is allowed. The entire proceedings arising from Simari P.S. Case no. 12 of 2004, G.R. No. 94 of 2004 including the order taking cognizance dated 19.07.2005 are quashed and set aside. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, 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.