Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37979 of 2010 (5) dt.07-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.37979 of 2010 ====================================================== Radhakant Mishra & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S,K.Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.K.Singh No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 5 07-02-2012 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Darbhanga under [STATUTE] against the petitioners in Cr.Misc. No. 68/05 G.R. No. 402/04. 2. As per the complaint filed by the O.P. No. 2 who is the son of petitioner no. 1 it has been alleged that the petitioners came armed and cut away three Sisam trees from the land of the complainant and chased him away when he objected by throwing a bhala at him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact no case under [STATUTE] has been made out rather it is merely a case of dispute between the family members and in fact the land in question does not belong to the complainant and hence there can be no question of offence under [STATUTE] . It has also been submitted that the offence is not made out in view of Title Suit No. 288 of 2010 which is pending before the learned Sub Judge-I, Darbhanga as stated in the supplementary Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37979 of 2010 (5) dt.07-02-2012 affidavit filed today. 4. Finding adequate materials on the records, a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken. The matter has been investigated by the police whereby final form has been submitted but, however, during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. four witnesses have been examined and thereafter cognizance has been taken. This aspect has been considered and affirmed in the impugned order of revision dated 19.9.2006. 5. Finding no illegality in the orders passed I am not inclined to interfere at this stage and the present petition is accordingly stands dismissed. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charges. Chandran (Vikash Jain, 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.