Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44505 of 2010 (2) dt.23-07-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44505 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ashok Sharma Ram Chandra Sharma 2. Hiralal Thakur Late Hirdaya Thakur 3. Arun Thakur Hiralal Thakur 4. Sunita Devi D/O Hiralal Thakur All resident of Village-Khaje Chand Chhapra, P. S. Kathara District-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Nandlal Thakur Jitlal Thakur 3. Jitlal Thakur Late Budhan Thakur 4. Sanjay Thakur Late Jitlal Thakur 5. Mania Devi D/O Jitlal Thakur All resident of Village-Khaje Chand Chhapra P. S.Kathara, District-Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER ------- 2 23.07.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner have prayed for quashing the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Complaint case no. C2 35/2007 by which and whereunder he having receipt prosecution report, took cognizance for the offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as a matter of fact, petitioners are in possession of the disputed land and they came in possession after purchase of the said land and after that they Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44505 of 2010 (2) dt.23-07-2012 2 got constructed their hut and so far as opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they have got no right, title and interest in the suit land because they are claiming on the basis of the agreement for sale and, therefore, no valid right and title was created in favour of opposite parties. In my view, it is not proper stage to discuss the aforesaid matter and admittedly, Sub divisional Magistrate, Mahua has submitted prosecution report for violation of his order and, therefore, I do not find any merit and substance in the present quashing petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed on the admission stage itself. However, the petitioners may raise their grievance before the learned trial court at appropriate stage. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)

Applicable IPC Section: 188

Statute Text:
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, If such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.