IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25112 of 2009 1. CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH S/O LATE YUGAL SINGH. 2. DABLU SINGH S/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH. 3. BABLU SINGH S/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONDIHA, POLICE STATION- TARAPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. 4. MITHILESH SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH. 5. SUNNI SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH. 6. SANJAI SINGH S/O RANJIT SINGH. 7. RANJIT SINGH S/O LATE BODH NARAYAN SINGH. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONDIHA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. ….. PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. …… OPPOSITE PARTY. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Prakaasu, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 03.05.2011. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in G.R. Case No. 955 of 2007 by which the discharge application filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected. It is submitted by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation is false and fabricated and the offence is not made out which would be apparent on perusal of the case diary. It is further submitted that while taking cognizance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger has added Section 379 of the Indian 2 Penal Code. It is submitted that even if it is presumed that there was some dispute between the parties, it was because of bonafide land dispute and as such, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable. At this stage, the Court does not think it proper to comment on whether Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the questions raised before this Court during trial and also lead evidence to substantiate that in fact no offence is made out under Section 379 and the other sections of the Indian Penal Code. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order and hence this application is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)