Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16641 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Deo Narayan Thakur son of late Amrit Thakur. 2. Krishan Narayan Thakur son of Sri Deo Narayan Thakur. 3. Laddu Devi wife of Sri Deo Narayan Thakur. 4. Meena Devi wife of Sri Krishan Narayan Thakur. All are residents of Village-Sonbarsha, P.S.-Lakhnour, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Satya Narayan Thakur son of late Amrit Thakur, resident of Village-Sonbarsha, P.S.-Lakhnour, District-Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 4 24-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 10.03.2010 passed in T.R. No. 112 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. 561 of 2009 by the Court of Sri Dhiraj Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the accused petitioners, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case for the offences under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1, who is brother of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16641 of 2010 (4) dt.24-09-2012 2/2 complainant-opposite party no. 2, Satya Narayan Thakur, has already lodged a case against complainant-opposite party no 2 numbered as Lakhnour P.S. Case No. 46 of 2009 registered under [STATUTE] on 24.06.2009 and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 has lodged this false complaint case against the petitioner no. 1 and others as a counter blast to the aforesaid case on 27.06.2009. Perused the impugned order from which it appears that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statements of the witnesses arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 346, 323 and 427 is made out against the petitioners and, accordingly, summoned them. I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all points, raised herein, at appropriate stage in trial Court. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 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.