SETHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.317 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, having been taken cognizance for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case of the prosecution is that an agricultural land comprised in S.No.468/1, 468/1B and 472 in Ilanthiraikondan village is owned by A6 and A4 is also the owner of the land situates adjacent to the land of A6. The allegation as against the petitioners is that A1 to A3 used tractor and have taken earth from the land of A6 without obtaining any permission and fill it the same in the land of A4. Hence, the charge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that even according to the case of prosecution, the charge for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. is not made out. The petitioners are all agriculturists and only to level the land of A4, they have taken earth from the land of A6 and filled the sake in the land of A4. In respect of the crime allegedly committed by the petitioner, no one is gained and no loss caused to anybody. He further submitted that in order to charge a person for the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that there was a movable property and the said movable property was in the possession of the person other than the accused and the accused took out the same out of the possession of said person and the accused did the offence dishonestly i.e., within intention to cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to another. However, these ingredients are not made as against the petitioners herein to attract the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the proceedings as against the petitioner.