Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.23998 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Jiya Lal Rai son of late Bhagwat Rai. 2. Dayashankar Kumar son of Jiyalal Rai. 3. Umashankar Rai son of Jiyalal Rai. All are residents of Vllage-Kushhar (South Tola), P.S.-Tariyari, District-Sheoghar. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Kishori Rai son of Dhodha Rai, resident of Village-Kushahar (South Tola), P.S.-Tariyani, District-Sheoghar. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Uday Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 04-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 24.01.2009, passed in Complaint Case No. C1-217/07 by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shirhar at Sitamarhi, summoning the accused-petitioners, on enquiry under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that initially on the basis of the complaint petition of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23998 of 2009 (3) dt.04-04-2012 2/2 opposite party no. 2, Kishori Rai, Tariyani P.S. Case No. 167 of 2006 was instituted under [STATUTE] against the petitioners but on investigation, police submitted final form with prayer to proceed against the informant/opposite party no. 2 under [STATUTE] , but thereafter on the protest of opposite party no. 2, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, treated the same as Complaint Case No. 217 of 2007, and on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the accused- petitioners, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] through impugned order dated 24.01.2009, which is illegal. Apparently, I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the Court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, 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.