IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34241 of 2007 1. VIVEKANAND SINGH, SON OF SHRI RAMANAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARARI, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KANKHARIA, P.S. HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 2. RAJNEESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VIVEKANANDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARARI, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KANKHARIA, P.S. HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 3. MOHAN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VIVEKANANDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARARI, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KANKHARIA, P.S. HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 4. RAJU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VIVEKANANDA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARARI, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE KANKHARIA, P.S. HATHAURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE JAMUNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANKHARIA, (KHARARI), P.S. HATHOURI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State :- Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P. ******** 7 11.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.11.2006 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 504, 379 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had demanded ‘Rangdari’ from the informant and had also snatched away golden chain from the neck of the informant’s wife. It is specifically alleged that Rajneesh Kumar Singh took away Rs. 30,000/- from the shop of the informant. The investigating authority found the case false as far as allegations under Sections 379 and 320 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and submitted charge sheet under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, District Samastipur, however, differed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences of theft as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a title suit pending between the informant and the petitioners who are agnates with respect to a house under construction, which has led to filing several criminal cases between the parties. It is also submitted that the allegations of theft are ornamental and no occurrence took place as mentioned in the First Information Report. The petitioners would have the liberty to raise these questions at the relevant time. However, this Court does not think it proper to interfere with the order taking cognizance at this stage. This application is thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)