IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.99 of 2010 Darogi Yadav @ Darogi Prasad Yadav Versus State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 7/ 6th Sept 2011 Inspite of having noticed, Respondent No.7 could not appear. Vide order dated 18.03.2011 the execution report against Respondent No.7 has been accepted. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. At an initial stage, as per Annexure-1 and 2 a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was drawn up with regard to 96 decimal land of plot no. 16770 of Khata No. 767 and 61 decimal of land having plot no. 16769 of Khata No. 730, having boundary in between the original land holder Navin Kumar Singh at one side and Jata Rajvanshi along with two others at other which was later on converted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and finally it was concluded vide order dated 20.10.1986, Annexure-5, declaring possession of Navin Kumar Singh over the aforesaid plot. Petitioner Darogi Yadav @ Darogi Prasad Yadav 2 happens to be purchaser form the aforesaid Navin Kumar Singh and he after purchasing the aforesaid land, met with the same consequence at the hands of same set of opposite parties on account of which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated bearing Misc. Case No. 96/2009 which was later on converted into 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding vide order dated 16.07.2009, Annexure-8, the order under challenge. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that once possession of vendor of petitioner had already been declared by the competent court and unless and until the same is set aside by the competent court, the aforesaid finding is bound to continue. Then submitted that no subsequent proceeding can be drawn up to undo the finding of the competent court. Hence, the order is fit to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that Annexure-5 was passed ex parte. Also submitted that the opposite party happens to be different persons than that of who happens to be figured under Annexure-5. Also submitted that though the execution report has been accepted by the Bench 3 but after going through the same it is evident that the same has not properly been executed against O.P. No.7. Also submitted that once for all let the proceeding be decided on its merit. Also submitted that the State has got also interest therein which Annexure- 7 itself discloses being the land Gairmazarua in nature. Also submitted that right from beginning the State has been left to be impleaded as party. So submitted that the order impugned is fit to be confirmed, consequent thereupon the instant petition is fit to be dismissed. It is needless to say that order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is judgment in rem and therefore, Annexure-5 has got validity in the eye of law. Having the position aforesaid, the subsequent proceeding does not justify its validity. Accordingly, order impugned is quashed. Consequent thereupon the instant petition is allowed. Liberty will be at the hand of State to take proper legal recourse. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)