Judgment By Court: This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by then Judicial Magistrate,1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No.92 of 2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 149/323 and 379/149 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and others. It is a case of the complainant that a pond situated over plot no.1768 appertaining to Khata no.88 of Mouza- Kundru Kala, P.S Ramgarh, District-Hazaribagh had fallen in the share of opposite party no.2 who has reared fish in it but the same was stealthily taken away by the accused persons. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken against the petitioners and others. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the complainant has claimed in the complaint that the pond is in exclusive possession but that claim gets falsified from the report submitted by the Circle Officer under the order of Deputy Commissioner Land Reform, when dispute arose between the parties over the matter relating to creation of Jamabandi in the name of the complainant, wherein it has been reported that the pond is in joint possession. Learned counsel further submitted that not only that even in the decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.192 of 1925 on the basis of compromise, the pond was shown in joint possession of the parties, descendants of whom is the complainant and the accused persons. Since those documents are impeachable in character which can be taken notice of. Thus, the aforesaid document when shows that the pond is in joint possession, the petitioners can never be said to have committed offence of theft. Therefore, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that it is a specific case of the complainant that pond belongs to him which is in exclusive possession of the complainant who had reared the fish which has been taken away by the accused persons, the petitioners can certainly be said to have committed offence as alleged. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, there does not appear to be any conflict on the position of law. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, there does not appear to be any conflict on the position of law. If the properties are in joint possession of the parties, one party can never be said to have committed offence of theft whenever allegation is levelled of theft of property by one party. In the instant case, the complainant has claimed to be an exclusive possession whereas the petitioners by referring certain documents which have been brought on record have demonstrated that the parties are having joint possession over the pond in question. It is true that the documents of the defence cannot be relied upon for consideration as to whether the order taking cognizance is illegal or legal but where the document is of impeachable character, it can always be taken notice of by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The document upon which the petitioners has put his reliance has never been disputed as forged or fabricated. In this situation, prma facie, it does appear that the pond in question was in joint possession of the parties. Under this situation, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 3.7.2003 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed.