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.)