Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15674 of 2012 (3) dt.01-11-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15674 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Lakhan Mahto son of Late Ram Tahal Mahto 2. Shambhu Mahto @ Shambhu Prasad son of Ganauri Mahto 3. Dani Mahto @ Shiv Dani Prasad son of Ganauri Mahto 4. Dharo Mahto @ Dharmendra Kumar son of Lakhan Mahto 5. Awadhesh Mahto @ Awadesh Kumar son of Bali Mahto, all resident of village Kosumbha (Halt), Police Station Kosumbha (Sheikhpura), District Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Pramila Devi w/o Shyam Lal Raut, resident of village Kosumbha (Halt), Police Station and District Sheikhpura .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Udai Chand Prasad, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3 01-11-2012 The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint case No.334C of 2011, by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The case of the Complainant is that while she was bringing manure to her fields, the accused persons intercepted her and forcibly committed theft of her personal belongings as also threatened her not to cultivate the disputed land. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that in the background of land dispute the Complainant had attempted to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15674 of 2012 (3) dt.01-11-2012 dropped by an order dated 22.10.2009 and ever since then she has been attempting to disturb the Petitioners’ possession and forcibly take possession of the land. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that a clear case of [STATUTE] . is made out and hence the prosecution be not quashed. Having gone through the background facts of the case and the statement of the Complainant on solemn affirmation, wherein she has herself admitted that there was land dispute between the parties and the Petitioners were claiming the land as their own. I am inclined to observe that the present case set in the background of active civil dispute is evidently false. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Complaint case No.334C of 2011 is quashed. Narendra/- (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.