Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Can we say i.o. to make 379 ipc in challan

(Querist) 11 June 2020 This query is : Resolved 
theft in supermart comes in 379 IPC but police written it 380 IPC in FIR
challan is not filed yet
we will have to face problem in compromise this case (380 is non coumpounding )
could we pray i.o. to correct it that is 379 IPC in his challan
so that we get compromise .complainant is ready for settlement
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 11 June 2020
Who obstructs you to pray? If he not hear, argue before the court at the time of the framing of the charge.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 12 June 2020
When IO has already completed investigation for the offence committed u/s 380 IPC, there is no need to get it diluted. It is more serious in nature and punishment which includes the offience u/s 379 IPC.
P. Venu (Expert) 12 June 2020
The question is whether the theft (may be it is a case of shop lifting) is an offence under Section 379 or 380 IPC? In my understanding, the offence is covered Section 379 unless the charge report suggests the case of theft from the godown or warehouse where customers are barred entry. The matter could be taken up with the trial court.
sonia sharma (Querist) 12 June 2020
thank you raj kumar sir
I.O. said us to make 482 crpc to quash from his advocate friend ( will take huge amount of fees ) & said he will not file challan till then & we promise to pay & 482 crpc
but meanwhile complaint said i will not go high court but settle the matter in lok adalat
he said give me 1 & 1/2 month to settle the case i am busy now
may be if i.o. will not wait longer then certainly we pray to him to make 379 ipc in challan
is this right ?? may be
sonia sharma (Querist) 12 June 2020
p. venu sir it is a customer like many other more then 150 customer entered in supermart & he was trying to exit without paying bill
it is not godown or wearhouse it was open place for customers
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 12 June 2020
You can try for 482 Criminal Procedure Code so that you may get sufficient time for the settlement with the complainant but the proceudre you mentioned can also be got tried.
sonia sharma (Querist) 12 June 2020
no CHANCE to quash because complainant had refused for it
tomorrow is 2nd meeting with him
lets see what happen
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 13 June 2020
First make up your mind how you want to proceed, quashing of the FIR, lok adalat or otherwise and move accordingly.

You can approach the IO accordingly, if not agree your lawyer may argue before the court.

K Rajasekharan (Expert) 16 June 2020
A theft committed by an accused in a Super Market/mall will come squarely under 380 IPC, as such a building is a storehouse of property.

But a simple theft from a person in a dwelling house would be considered a simple theft under 379.

Theft committed in a building used for custody of property is a grave offence than theft from a person.

sonia sharma (Querist) 16 June 2020
thank you K Rajasekharan sir for reply
why did not councel Raj kumar makked g ,rajendra K Goyal ji P.venu tell that this is 380 ipc
may be they r not sure
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 16 June 2020
Case is under which charge stands framed. It does'nt require our permission. Whatever are the contents of the challan is the only material before the trial magistrate to to through and thus this is not a debatable issue here what should and ought to be the correct section rather our reply is confined only upto your query and according to your latest facts, there is no possibility of any settlement and thus face the trial now. Your query stands resolved accordingly.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 17 June 2020
Advises have limited scope and are without referring full case file and facts.

Reply is based on the limited information given in the query.

Sections were frequently referred by the author, it seems author was aware of this basic difference.
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 17 June 2020
I do endorse the observation of expert Goyal.
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 18 June 2020
Expert Raj Kumar makkad ji, thanks for agreeing.
P. Venu (Expert) 18 June 2020
What is problem in a common man knowing the law or at least, getting familiar with the particular aspects of law when he/she is placed in dire straights. Just recall the celebrated word of the Supreme Court in Bidi Supply Co vs The Union Of India :

"After all, for whose benefit was the Constitution enacted? What was the point of making all this pother about fundamental rights? I am clear that the Constitution is not for the exclusive benefit of governments and States; it is not only for lawyers and politicians and officials and those highly placed. It also exists for the common man, for the poor and the humble, for those who have businesses at stake., for the 'butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker'”
P. Venu (Expert) 18 June 2020
The query whether theft from a supermarket constitutes an offence in terms of 379 or 380 IPC requires a restatement of the provisions of Sections 378, 379 and 380 IPC:

Section 378:- Theft -
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’ consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

379. Punishment for theft.—
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 380:- Theft in dwelling house, etc.
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Obviously, Section 379 deals with all general instances whereas Section 380 deals with the aggravated case where the theft is from a building etc. which is "used as human dwelling, or used for the custody of property". In my understanding, the portion of the supermarket where goods are displayed for the customers does not constitute the area where property is kept in custody. (it would have been so had the theft been from the godown or warehouse or similar area where the customers are prohibited from entry or are not expected to enter). May be the prevailing practice is that Police are in the habit or under instruction to book such cases under 380, and not 379 IPC.

The proper procedure in this case, to my knowledge, is to move a CMP in the Trial Court before the framing of charges and try to get appropriate Orders.
sonia sharma (Querist) 20 June 2020
sonia sharma (Querist) 20 June 2020
IF Anyone tell me full form of CMP mentioned by p. venu
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 21 June 2020
Civil Misc. Petition (C.M.P.)
Criminal Misc. Petition (Crl.M.P.)
Probably CMP is used for Criminal Misc. Petition (Crl.M.P.)
Guest (Expert) 21 June 2020
Here the CMP might have meant Court Mediation .
sonia sharma (Querist) 21 June 2020
Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 21 June 2020
You are welcome, may revert in case of any further question on the issue.

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now