Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2011 (3) dt.13-12-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21737 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Alauddin Mian son of Late Idd Mohammad Mian, resident of village- Khansama Tola, Post-Hathua, PS-Mirganj, OP-Hathua, District-Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar and others. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gulam Rabbani, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 13-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 2146 of 2007 for offence under [STATUTE] against six (06) persons including the petitioner. An FIR vide Hathua P.S. Case No. 01/2007 for offence under [STATUTE] was instituted, on the basis of Complaint Case No. 597/2007 where the allegation has been made that the complainant/informant was using a lane having width of 3’ 18” existing running from North to South left for proper ventilation and for entry. It has been alleged that as informant was using old Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2011 (3) dt.13-12-2012 latrine system on the passage and wanted to make repair of the old wall had fallen down at certain portion. It has been alleged, on 10.4.2007 the mason and majdoor were brought for repairing the damaged portion of the said wall but the accused persons came there armed with Lathi, Danda and forcibly expelled mason and labourer and prevented them to repair the old wall and also made an allegation that they have entered into his house, abused and took Rs. 5,000/- which was kept by the informant for the purpose of repair of the boundary wall. Police investigated the case and submitted the Final Form in favour of the petitioner but on the basis of complaint petition the court below took cognizance under the aforesaid sections which is under challenge before this Court. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 is aged 75 years and his two sons who do not live in their village regularly rather they are working at South Africa and Saudi Arabia and also one who is a student of Engineering at Bhopal. It has further been alleged that when they were on way to their respective places, the present case has been lodged only to harass the petitioner so that they may not go to their working places or prosecute study. At this stage, it is very difficult to filter the statement Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21737 of 2011 (3) dt.13-12-2012 made in the FIR-cum-Protest Petition, it can only be tested at subsequent stage. At this stage, this Court refuses to interfere with the order of cognizance. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the court below and the court below will pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. 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.