Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47486 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Dharmnath Singh, son of Late Asharfi Singh. 2. Sitendra Singh, son of Dharmnath Singh. 3. Nepal Singh, son of Late Rajbali Singh. 4. Tarachand Singh, son of Nepal Singh. 5. Niranjan Singh, son of Nepal Singh. All residents of village-Chand Barwan, P.S. Masrakh, District- Chapra. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kamta Singh, resident of village-Chand Barwan, P.S. Masrakh, District-Chapra. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Bind Keshri, Advocate. For the State : Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ------------------ 7 28-03-2012 This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, in Mashrakh P.S. Case No.118 of 2005, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] against the accused- petitioners. A prayer has also been made on behalf of the accused- petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case. 2. In brief, the case is that on the basis of the written Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47486 of 2008 (7) dt.28-03-2012 2 / 6 2 report of the informant-opposite party no.2, Kamta Singh, Mashrakh P.S. Case No.118 of 2005 was instituted on 12.8.2005 under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioners. The informant-opposite party no.2 has alleged in his written report that on 12.8.2005 at about 3 A.M., the accused-petitioners, Dharmnath Singh, Sitendra Singh, Nepal Singh, Tarachand Singh and Niranjan Singh, armed with weapons came at his door and caught hold of him. Thereafter, the accused- petitioner no.3, Nepal Singh, ordered to set fire by a match stick. While the other accused-petitioners, started looting the articles, the accused-petitioner no.1, Dharmnath Singh, from the western side set fire by match stick and tried to throw him in the fire, on which his family and servant made protest. On hulla being raised, the villagers rushed there and tried to extinguish the fire but 20 kgs. Wheat and 10 kgs. Rice, as alleged to be kept there, burnt. At that time, the accused-petitioners took away two boxes and one attachee containing ornaments and clothes from the alleged place of occurrence. 3. After investigation, police submitted the final form finding the case true under [STATUTE] against unknown but untrue against the accused-petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. The learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47486 of 2008 (7) dt.28-03-2012 3 / 6 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, on perusal of the final form, seizure list and the case diary took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] against the accused-petitioners, differing with the final form submitted by the police, through the impugned order dated 5.5.2006, which is impugned in this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that the land, on which the place of occurrence is situated, is recorded in R.S. Khatiyan in the name of Bootan Singh, the ancestor of the of the petitioner no.3, Nepal Singh but for that land the informant-opposite party no.2 was creating trouble saying that the R.S. Khatiyan is not recorded in the name of Bootan Singh, rather the same was recorded in the name Juthan Singh and he has purchased the land from the heirs of Juthan Singh, regarding which Title Suit No.79 of 1998 has been filed by the petitioner no.3, Nepal Singh, in which on a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner no.3, Nepal Singh, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner no.3 and against the informant-opposite party no.2, Kamta Singh on 25.11.1998, which would appear from Annexure-‘4’ to this application. The informant-opposite party no.2 against the said order preferred Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47486 of 2008 (7) dt.28-03-2012 4 / 6 4 Miscellaneous Appeal No.135 of 1998 but he lost the appeal from the court of the Additional District Judge-XI, Saran, Chapra, which would appear from Annexure-‘5’ to this application. It has also been submitted that the informant-opposite party no.2 and his family members in order to distract the petitioners committed offence under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act in disputed plot, regarding which Complaint Case No.467 of 2001 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner no.3, Nepal Singh against the informant-opposite party no.2 and others, which is pending in the court of Sri Shatrughan Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saran, Chapra. As such, the informant-opposite party no.2 has filed this false case, in which the police on investigation has submitted the final form against the petitioners, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, differing with the final form submitted by the police, took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under [STATUTE] through the impugned order dated 5.5.2006. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State made submission that the informant-opposite party no.2 and the witnesses in paragraphs-5, 6, 7 and 8 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. The independent witnesses have Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47486 of 2008 (7) dt.28-03-2012 5 / 6 5 also supported the prosecution case in respect to occurrence of burning th

Applicable IPC Section: 436

Statute Text:
Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.