IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.31965 OF 2007 ABDUL QUDDUS VS STATE AND ORS. ----------- 6 06.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order taking cognizance dated 24.1.2004 by which learned magistrate took cognizance of office under section 144, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner states that the magistrate ought to have taken cognizance under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code also. He submits that pursuant to order dated 23.5.2002 on application of Investigating officer section 411 I.P.C. was added to the F.I.R. The petitioner further states that as looted articles were recovered from the premises of opposite party no.2, 8 and 9 cognizance under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code also ought to have been taken against them. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. In order to appreciate the points it would be worthwhile to produce section 411 of the Indian Penal Code which is quoted herein below. 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.- whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. It would appear from FIR itself that the accused persons including opposite party numbers 2, 8 and 9 committed theft in the house of the informant. There is no allegation that accused persons received any stolen property from any accused and has retained the same. In absence of such allegations, the learned Magistrate rightly did not add section 411 I.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)