High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Ram Lal Chachan vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Lal Chachan vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Cr.Misc. No.36253 of 2008
Ram Lal Chachan, son of Late Gokhul Chand Chachan, resident of Christian Quarter, PS Bettiah
                         Town, Dist. West Champaran - Petitioner.
                                          Versus
                                      State Of Bihar
                                        -----------

3 25.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the order,

dated 26.5.2008 passed in Bettiah (T) PS Case No. 87/2007 by the

C.J.M, Bettiah by which cognizance has been taken for the

offences alleged to have been committed under sections 413 and

414/34 of the Penal Code.

There is an allegation of theft of electrical wire which

was found in the house of one Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner is not

named in the First Information Report. Subsequently it has been

said that he was seen running away from the place of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far

as the recovery part is concerned, Rakesh Kumar, the owner of the

shop admits that the recovered copper wire and electrical wire

belonged to him. It is, therefore, submitted that if the alleged theft

articles which have been recovered has been treated to belong to

Rakesh Kumar, there would be no offence under sections 319 and

414 of the Penal Code for that matter, as far as this petitioner is

concerned.

These aspects of matter would need to be considered

by the court below at the stage of framing of charges. If the court
2

finds that the articles recovered belongs to Rakesh Kumar and he

is able to show prima facie that he is the owner and in legal

possession of the articles, then the court will pass appropriate

orders in this matter discharging the petitioner as no factum of

theft can be maintainable in a case of this nature. Counsel for the

petitioner may raise any other issue before the court below if he

thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

This application is disposed of with the aforesaid

observations.

haque                                          ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)