Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1508 of 2012 ====================================================== MUKESH KUMAR RAI @ MUKESH RAI @ MUKESH RAI, S/O NANDKISHORE RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATWARA KAPOOR, POST OFFICE NIJHMA MADHOPUR, POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. MADAN MOHAN PD. SINGH, S/O SRI BIPIN BIHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHATWARA KAPOOR, POST OFFICE NIJHMA MADHOPUR, POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI 2. STATE OF BIHAR 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR 4. IGP, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. DIG OF POLICE, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAISHALI 7. SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER MAHUA, VAISHALI 8. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, TISIOUTA POLICE STATION 9. SHAMBHU RAI, S/O LATE GOPAL RAI 10. UMESH RAI S/O LATE GOPAL RAI 11. SURESH RAI S/O LATE HAJIR RAI 12. BIRAJ RAI, S/O LATE RAJGIR RAI 13. SANTU RAI, S/O PREM NATH RAI 14. AJAY KUMAR RAI, S/O PREM NATH RAI .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Srinandan Pd.Singh For the private respondent : Mr. R.S.Das For the State : Mr S.S.P. Singh, AC to GP 17. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 9 26-09-2012 I find that the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Rai has wrongly been made respondent no.15 in review application. Learned counsel for the petitioner should be vigilant while drafting the petition. The petitioner has filed the instant application for review of the ex-parte order dated 13.1.2008, passed in Cr.W.J.C.No. Patna High Court MJC No.1508 of 2012 (9) dt.26-09-2012 2 / 2 865 of 2008 filed by one Madan Mohan Prasad Singh. Petitioner is respondent no.15 of Cr.W.J.C.No. 865/08. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner (Madan Mohan Prasad Singh) submitted that the Sub-judge 6 by registered sale deed dated 3.3.2005 transferred the lands mentioned therein in favour of the petitioner and the delivery of possession was also given to him by the process of court on .1.2.2008. The petitioner thereof stated that the opposite parties are interfering with the cultivation of the said plot and have also committed theft of crops. The writ petition was disposed of on 13.1.2009 with following observations:- “It would appear from Annexure 5 that during the continuance of a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. the respondents had cut the crops in question and ploughed the land. The police recommended for initiating a proceeding under [STATUTE] . It would further appear from the order dated 17.7.2008 that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahua has issued show cause to respondents 8 to 15 as to why appropriate action be not taken for violation of the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. It appears from Annexure 1 that the land in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner and the delivery of possession was given to him by the process of court. In such situation, the Officer-in-charage, Tisiouta Police station is directed to provide all security to the petitioner for ploughing and harvesting his land. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned GP 9.” Patna High Court MJC No.1508 of 2012 (9) dt.26-09-2012 3 / 3 The petitioner who is respondent no.15 in Cr.W.J.C.No. 865/2008 has sought review of order dated 13.1.2009 on the ground that delivery of possession was only handed over on paper and not effective delivery of possession was handed over in favour of Madan Mohan Prasad Singh (writ petitioner of Cr.W.J.C.No.865/2008). The petitioner further submits that Misc.Case no. 1/2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 is pending against exparte decree passed by the trial court in Title suit no. 5 of 2000 in favour of Madan Mohan Prasad Singh.. I do not find any error of record in the said order warranting interference, till the order of the Sub judge transferring the land in favour of Madan Mohan Prasad Singh and the subsequent delivery of possession are not interfered with by the superior courts. The trial court in seisin of Misc. case no. 1/2008 would expedite the hearing of the same so as to conclude it within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, 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.