Girish Kumar Dwivedi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission.

The applicants have preferred the present petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR lodged vide Crime No. 342/2012 at Police Station Mauganj District Rewa for the offence u/s 379/34 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case are that a crime u/s 379/34 of IPC was registered against the applicants at Police Station Mauganj that they had stolen the crop of Smt. Lakspati Mishra from Survey No. 627/1.

The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Shanti Devi relative of the applicants had purchased the property from Hansraj @ Bhola and thereafter mutation took place and name of Shanti Devi was mutated on the land in dispute. Prior to that name of Hansraj @ Bhola was mutated in the revenue records and after sale of the property Shanti Devi received the possession of the property, and therefore if crops of the possession of the property of Shanti Devi are taken by the applicants, then no offence u/s 379 of IPC is made out against the applicants.

It is apparent that initially the land was of one Bhanu Pratap and after his death partition took place and various lands were mutated in the name of Hansraj @ Bhola. But the applicants could not produce any of the revenue entry to show that after partition, Hansraj obtained possession of the property. It is true that Shanti Devi purchased the property from Hansraj and others but after purchase of the property there is no entry of revenue record to show that she cultivated the land or she was in possession of the land. Under such circumstances, the applicants could not prove that at the time of incident Shanti Devi was in possession of the property and crops which were taken by the applicants were sown by Shanti Devi.

Crime of theft is dependent not upon the title of the property, but on the possession of the property. If the crop was sown by the complainant, though the applicants had title on the property, then they could not take the crop of the complainant. At this stage when the applicants could not prove that Shanti Devi received possession of the property after its purchase, then at this stage there is no ground to say that registration of crime may be quashed.

It is for the applicants to prove their case before the trial Court at the stage of defence evidence. It is not a good case in which the inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. may be invoked. Consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage.