JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. This is an application under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 18-12-1985 passed by Shri U.S. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Darbhanga in T.R. No. 778/86/C.R. Misc. Case 124/85 corresponding to C.R. No. 1426 of 1985, by which cognizance of the offence under sections 144 and 379 of the Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and they have been summoned to face the trial. 2. On 12.12.1985, the complainant Opposite Party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga against the petitioners alleging therein that on 29.11.1985, the petitioners along with other persons variously armed with Lathi, Bhala and Hasua came upon the Plot No. 434 of Mauja Tardih and started cutting the paddy crop grown by him. When complainant protested against the petitioners from forcibly cutting the crops, one of the petitioners chased him to assault with Bhala. He left the place out of fear and then the petitioners cut away the entire paddy crops causing a loss of Rs. 1000/- to him. 3. The complainant was examined on S.A. by Shri N. Mishra, S.D.J.M., Darbhanga and thereafter, he transferred the case to Shri U.S. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class for enquiry under section 192 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the enquiry, two witnesses were examined by the complainant, thereaffer cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken as mentioned aforesaid. 4. Shri Shailendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that a suit for specific performance of contract being Title Suit No. 155 of 1983 ie pending in the court of Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga between Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha and the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2. The petitioners are the labourers of Dr. Chandra Mohan Jha, plaintiff of the Title Suit. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that there was a negotiation for the sale of the disputed plot No. 434 besides other plots between the plaintiff and one Pitamber Thakur for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- out of the said amount a sum of Ra. 49,000/- was paid to Phambar Thakur and Pitambar Thakur put the plaintiff in possession of the land in token of the receipt of part payment of the consideration money. However, before the transfer deed could be executed, Pitambar Thakur died. 60,000/- out of the said amount a sum of Ra. 49,000/- was paid to Phambar Thakur and Pitambar Thakur put the plaintiff in possession of the land in token of the receipt of part payment of the consideration money. However, before the transfer deed could be executed, Pitambar Thakur died. After his death, his wife and sons refused to execute the transfer deed in favour of the plaintiff. They instead executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant. The plaintiff, therefore, was forced to file a suit No. 155/83 for specific performance of contract. 5. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for maintaining the status quo during the pendency of the suit. A Pleader Commissioner was appointed to make local inspection and report, who after making local inspection submitted a report on 24.1.1984 stating that disputed Plot No. 434 was found amalgamated with other plots of the plaintiff. 6. The Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga by his order dated 3.2.1984/24.7.1985 directed for the maintenance of status quo and the same situation is continuing till date. After passing the order for the maintenance of status quo, the father and brother of the complainant tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land by harvesting the crop grown by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff lodged Sanha No. 48 dated 3.4.84 on the basis of which Manigachchi P.S. Case No. 50/84 was registered under sections 144, 447, 379 and 307, I.P.C. and other sections against the father and brother of the complainant; The plaintiff is in possession of the disputed Plot No. 434. He had grown crop and the same was harvested by the petitioners in exercise of bona fide right. The cognizance is bad in law and the same is fit to be set aside. 7. Sri V.N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party has however contended that the scope of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (1) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court. 7. Sri V.N. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party has however contended that the scope of enquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (1) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court. (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complaint without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. He placed reliance in the case of Nagawwa vs. Veeranna ( AIR 1976 SC 1947 ). 8. The present case stands on different footing. A suit for specific performance of contract was admittedly pending from before the institution of this case, in respect of disputed Plot No. 434 and there is report of Pleader Commissioner that Plot No. 434 was found amalgamated with the other lands of the plaintiff. The order for maintaining the status quo was also passed by the Subordinate Judge. 9. The element of dishonest intention which is one of the essential ingredients of theft is wanting in this case. The petitioners thus cannot be said to have harvested the crop dishonestly. It is now settled by a catena of decisions that an act does not amount to theft unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right. 10. The continuance of the proceeding in the circumstance will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 11. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order is set aside And in the result the application is allowed.