Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6168 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Ram Janam Singh, son of late Chirkut Singh 2. Manager Singh 3. Jitendra Singh 4. Harikishore Singh 5. Nand Kishore Singh 6. Dhurandhar Singh All sons of Ram Janam Singh All residents of village Sirsa Manpur, P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shambhu Nath Singh, son of Prabhunath Singh, resident of village Sirsa Manpur, P.S. Baikunth, Distt. Gopalganj. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Pd. Singh No. 2, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. Upadhayay, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 4. 17-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in Trial No. 1990 of by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The case of the Complainant is that he had received four Katthas 6 Dhurs of land in Khata No. 244, Plot No. 217 situated in Village Sirsa, Manpur, Distt. Gopalganj. On the date of occurrence, while the Masoor Crops were ready for harvesting, the accused persons allegedly came there and committed theft of the same as also assaulted him and took away his money. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6168 of 2009 (4) dt.17-04-2012 2 / 2 2 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that during enquiry witness No. 2 Sheoji Singh clearly stated that the petitioner No. 6 was in possession of the land under dispute and it was he who had grown the crops. The further submission is that there is bona fide land dispute between the parties and, therefore, no offence under [STATUTE] or any other offence is made out against the accused persons. On the last occasion, notices were issued to the Opposite party No. 2 who despite receipt of notices has chosen not to appear before this Court. Having gone through the Complaint petition, I am of the view that in the background of land dispute between the parties, this Complaint is evidently frivolous in nature and fit to be set aside. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj, in connection with Trial No. 1990 of 2009 is hereby quashed. S.Ali (Anjana Prakash, 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.