The court emphasized the need for evidence of exclusive ownership to sustain theft charges under IPC, and civil disputes cannot cloak criminal accusations.

Last heard on : 16.07.2025 Judgement on : 01.09.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused persons/petitioners against an order dated March 7, 2007 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah, in G.R. case no 2538 of 2005 under Section 504 /506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the petition under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected during pendency of this revisional application.

2. The de-facto complainant /Opposite Party no 2 expired as per process information handed over and direction was given to the state to verify the authenticity of the said statement. Accordingly the report was submitted which was affirmed. The fact of the case was that a complaint lodged under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the Opposite Party no 2 since deceased alleging inter alia that he along with his brother being the co-sharer of a pond situated at Dag no 133, Khatian No 156, 60 and 49 of Mouza Haphezpur, of which the accused persons are also the co-sharer and they have snatched away the share of fish on 14^th of August 2005 over which a complaint case no 861 of 2005 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code was pending before the Court of 7th Judicial Magistrate at Howrah.

3. It was further alleged that the accused person again on 16.10.2005 through some fisherman collected the fish and on raising objection by the complainant and his brother they were threatened with dire consequences by using filthy languages for which a GD was lodged to the concerned police station. After that while returning back to the pond side came to learn from other co-sharer that the accused persons took away the share of fish of the complainant.

4. On the basis of the said complaint the case started under Section

504/506/379/34 of Indian Penal Code and the Investigation Officer on completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused except accused no 3 Mustafa. a student who was subsequently discharged.

5. Challenging the said proceeding the petitioner moved an application being CRR no 3911 of 2005 before this Court for quashing under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and vide an Order dated 1^st March, 2006 direction was given to the petitioner to produce all such documents such as record of rights etc. before the Investigating Authority and further directed that the Investigating Authority to take proper consideration with the liberty to approach the Hon’ble Court.

6. According to the Learned Advocate of the petitioner the dispute is purely civil in nature and the record of rights in connection with the pond in question is in the name of the present petitioner’s father and their uncle Abdus Salem and Abdul Sultan.

7. That apart the other complaint as was lodged on 14^th of August, 2005 in respect of the self-same pond is pending before the 7^th Court of Judicial Magistrate. It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any element of alleged offence as most of the witnesses have narrated the date of occurrence which took place on 16^th of August, 2005.

8. In this case a supplementary affidavit was submitted by the petitioners intimating that an order of acquittal has been passed in the complaint case no 861 of 2005 which was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 7^th Court at Howrah. In this case pursuant to the direction passed by a co- ordinate bench the state was directed to produce the case diary before this Court and to furnish a status report of the pro