IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1458 of 2008 1. SARYU SINGH Son of Late Gobind Singh 2. Harihar Sah Son of Late Bhikhari Sah 3. Lalli Singh Son of Late Ram Janam Singh 4. Dina Singh 5. Binod Singh, both sons of Saryu Singh 6. Kedar Singh Son of Jagan Singh 7. Prabhu singh Son of Saryu Singh 8. Ladu Singh Son of Shambhu Singh 9. Satya Prakash Sah @ Munna Sah 10. Om Prakash Sah, both sons of Harihar Sah 11. Jagan Singh Son of Late Sheo Bihari Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 19.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite valid service of notice. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Rev. No. 126 of 2007, whereby he dismissed the revision application and affirmed the order dated 26.04.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram, Rohtas in Complaint Case no. 1341 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that no case under Section 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, in the facts of the case. The opposite party no.2 in his complaint in paragraph -2 stated that a 11 member committee has been constituted under the chairmanship of Circle Officer, Sasaram vide letter no. 2811 dated 19.10.2000 of Religious Trust Board. It is alleged that the committee has been improbably constituted. The complaint case discloses a dispute over harvesting of - 2 - paddy crop standing in the land mentioned in the complaint petition, which belong Akasi Math. The complainant nowhere has disclosed that he is in possession over the same. By virtue of notification dated 10.10.2000 of the Religious Trust Board, the committee has taken charge of Akashi Math in accordance under Section 32 of the Religious Trust Board Act. The committee, as such, in exercise of its bonafide claim is supervising harvesting. It is well settled, if a person harvests under bonafide claim, no case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out. In view of the aforesaid facts, this court finds that no case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioners, who are members of committee, duly constituted by Religious Trust Board. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Rohtas at Sasaram affirming the order dated 26.04.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sasaram, Rohtas in Complaint case no. 1341 of 2006, appertaining to Tr. No. 2213 of 2007 are set aside. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)