IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39248 of 2006 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners:-Mr. Shivnandan Rai,Sr.Advocate For Opp-Party:-Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary For the State:- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,A.P.P. 6 20.3.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State and Opposite party No.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2006 passed by Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger rejecting their application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Complaint case No. 935C/2000 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger under Sections 323,341,379,147,148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is bonafide dispute between the petitioners - 2 - and the Opposite party no.2 with regard to the land in question and both are claiming title. In that situation, if a bonafide claim is raised, the question of theft from such lands does not arise. The lands belonged to the petitioners themselves. Counsel for the Opposite party No.2 urged that it is their specific case that in pursuance of the claim of title and he is in possession of the lands and also planted paddy crops which has been alleged to have been cut, invoking of section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. From the impugned order rejecting the prayer for discharge it does not appear that the petitioners had raised any claim of bonafide plantation of crops in the land. In any event of the matter, whose title is valid, who had planted the crops, are matter of facts - 3 - to be determined first and only thereafter the question of applicability of section 379 of the Indian Penal Code shall arise. This Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned. The applicability of Section 379 of the Penal Code is a matter of trial itself. Application stands dismissed. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar