Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23749 of 2010 ====================================================== Biren Lal Dubhaliya @ Birendra Lal, son of Jaggu Lal Dubhaliya, resident of Mohalla- Nawagarhi, Gaya, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Vinod Lal Tatak, son of Late Janardan Lal Tatak, resident of Mohalla- Vishnupath Road, Sisoriya Chaura, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ------------------------ 3 25-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.K.Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the complainant/ Opp.Party no.2. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as an accused in Complaint Case No.144 of 2009, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 08.06.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.144 of 2009/ Tr.No.523 of 2009 and has further prayed for directing the court below to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on an allegation that the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 has committed forgery in a court proceeding. It was alleged that Page no.10 of the complaint petition was substituted subsequently. Before this Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23749 of 2010 (3) dt.25-09-2012 2 / 3 2 Court, further plea was taken that [STATUTE] were subsequently added in the complaint petition. However, no such prayer or statement was made before the court below, while making prayer for conducting enquiry. In the complaint petition, enquiry was still continuing and order of cognizance was not passed and even before issuance of summons, the petitioner, who was one of the accused in a novel way, has filed a petition for conducting an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate even then allowed the petitioner to press the petition and after examining the material on record, the court was of the opinion that no such alleged offence was committed and rejected the petition. This Court has also examined page no.10 of the complaint petition, purportedly to be substituted subsequently. While perusing page no. 10 of the complaint petition, photo copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the petition, I have aslo perused page nos. 9 and 11 of the complaint petition. Prima facie, after going through the averment, it is evident that first sentence of page no.10 of the complaint petition is in continuity of last sentence of page no.9. Learned Magistrate, while hearing on petition filed by the petitioner, has minutely perused page no.10 of the complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23749 of 2010 (3) dt.25-09-2012 3 / 3 3 petition and was of the opinion that seal and date were same, which was mentioned on other pages. After going through the materials on record, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner. The order impugned needs no interference. The petition is dismissed. In view of the fact that complaint petition was filed in the year 2009 and enquiry was pending till the date of passing of the order, while dismissing the petition, it is necessary to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously. The petition stands dismissed with above observation. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.