Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16138 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16138 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Md. Mumtaz 2. Md. Ali 3. Md. Azaz 4. Md. Seraz, sons of late Imamuddin, resident of Village + P.S. Jandaha, District- Vaishali. 5. Vishwanath Ram, son of Ram Shwarup Ram, R/O village Hirapur, P.S. Jandaha, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Mahmood Alam, son of Late Md. Shafi, R/O village- + P.S. Jandaha, District- Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Shaheen Begum, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 17-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order 15.1.2011 passed in complaint Case No.636 of 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . From the complaint petition it appears that the complainant has claimed to be the owner of the property but the petitioners side wanted to illegally possession over the land. When objection was raised the accused persons have assaulted him with fists and slaps and they have forcibly Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16138 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 took away bags of cement and at the same time chips worth Rs.2,000/ has been spread which cause loss to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the record it appears that it is a case of malicious prosecution because they have filed a case against him for demanding Rangdari and he has shown helplessness for payment of the same because of financial liability. He further submits that it is by and large a malicious prosecution and this case has been lodged with an intention to exert pressure. From the complaint petition that has been filed by the petitioners it appears that they have not made claim over the property rather they have said that they wanted to construct a house and the complainant opposite party was asked him to pay Rs.2500/- by way of extortion of money. From the present case it is very difficult to infer that it is malicious prosecution because this Court does not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. The contention is rejected and accordingly this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16138 of 2011 (2) dt.17-08-2012 appropriate stage of trial. It is made clear that the court below will not be prejudiced by the order passed by this Court. Vinay/- (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.