JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated, 31st October, 2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 244 (C) of 2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur has framed charges against the Petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penai Code. 2. The Petitioners are the employees of the Indian Railways. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the Petitioners along with others went over Plot No. 393, Khata No. 305 situated in the village Bihta and it is alleged that along with unknown persons, the two Petitioners demolished the boundary wall of the Complainant and also took away some cement and building materials, worth Rs. 20,000 3. For the same occurrence, the Petitioners gave a report to the Police Station, stating therein that the plot mentioned aforesaid belongs to the Indian Railways and the Opposite Party No. 2 is constructing a boundary wall on the said land. 4. The co-sharer of the Petitioner had come to this Court with a prayer that the Respondent, i.e. Indian Railways should be stopped from further demolishing the construction over the plot in question. The writ application was dismissed. Thereafter, a review application was filed. In the review application, the Court came to a finding that in fact this plot of land has not been handed over to the Indian Railways. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the lands in question was requisitioned for Aviation Department, however, because of one reason or the other, the lands were not acquired by the State or the Union Government. 5. From the perusal of the complaint, it appears that there was a bona fide dispute with respect to the title of the lands. The Petitioners under the bona fide belief that the lands belonged to the Indian Railways took steps to try and stop the Petitioners from raising a boundary wall and making further constructions on the lands in question. The pleadings in the writ application indicate that in fact 144 proceedings etc. were initiated for the lands in question. It appears that the co-sharers of the Petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar, Vijay Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Singh and Sidheshwar Prasad Singh had made a complaint that on 2nd September, 2004, the Petitioners were trying to demolish part of the construction on the lands in question. were initiated for the lands in question. It appears that the co-sharers of the Petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar, Vijay Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Singh and Sidheshwar Prasad Singh had made a complaint that on 2nd September, 2004, the Petitioners were trying to demolish part of the construction on the lands in question. There is a title suit pending between the parties, which is Title Suit No. 138 of 2004 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1, Patna with respect to the lands in question. Apparently, despite all orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the like, there has been a dispute between the Petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 regarding possession of the land in question. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that if the matter has been referred to the Police for investigation, the Court would have got a clear picture with respect to the occurrence, as the Petitioners deny that they have ever used force to remove the Petitioners. 6. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the allegation of theft is exaggerated to give the case a serious look. It is difficult for this Court to find out whether in fact any steps were taken by the Petitioners to participate in occurrence which allegedly took place on 2nd April, 2002, however, this much is apparently clear that allegations under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code have been deliberately made, to give the case a serious look, as it cannot be imagined and believed that the Officials of the Indian Railways would steal the articles lying for construction of the boundary wall. Besides which it cannot be believed that the officials would participate in the occurrence of breaking or demolishing the wall. All these facts need to be determined after perusing the evidence. Another factor of importance is the intention of the parties which can be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated, 31st October, 2005 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Court below to reconsider the question of framing of the charges on the basis of the evidence that has come on record and the observations of this Court in this application. 8. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.