IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10703 of 2008 Ravindra Narayan Agarwal @ Ravindra Nenal Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal -------- Opposite Parties ---- 9 11-11-2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Begusarai whereby it has rejected Criminal Revision No. 234/06 filed by petitioner against the order dated 10.5.2006 passed by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Manjhaul in Case no. 137M/06 initiating a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. on the land under khata no. 1423, Khesra no. 6548, area 4 bighas 12 kathas. Heard counsel for the parties. In brief a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 to initiate a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. for the land of Khesra no. 1423 plot no. 6548, area 4 bighas and 12 kathas situated in village Manjhaul, P.S. Manjhaul O.P., District Begusarai in the court of learned S.D.M., Manjhaul. Learned S.D.M. called for a report from the concerned Police Station and relying thereon initiated the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. by 2 passing order dated 10.5.2006 which in Rev.no. 234/06 is affirmed by passing the impugned order dated 20.12.07 by Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.)V, Begusarai. Sustainability of the order in question is challenged on several legal as well as factual facts that is to say that earlier also apprehension of breach of peace was reported to the learned S.D.M. a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. initiated which was pressed to be converted into one under section 145 Cr.P.C. by opposite party no.2 but same was turned down and no proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated after conversion, a case was pending in between the parties for the same land in Civil Court and no proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. would be initiated over joint land of the parties. Stress is made that petition (any) was filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 dating only 2.5.2006, a report was called for from the concerned Police Station on 3.5.2006 that was complied and a report was filed on the same day regarding apprehension of breach of peace in between the parties basing which impugned order is passed on 10.5.2006, so that is taken first 3 if decides the case finally. Admittedly order dated 10.5.2006 is there only to show that any petition was filed on 2.5.2006 relying thereon a report was called for from the concerned Police Station on 3.5.2006 and then only this order is passed. In context of earlier proceeding in which final order was passed on 17.4.2006 in Case No.62M/06, the circumstance discussed above that a petition is filed on 2.5.2006, report is called for from the concerned Police Station on 3.5.2006, report is filed on the same day without mentioning any where in the order sheet passing of impugned order on 10.5.2006 appears highly objectionable (doubtful) in reaching satisfaction. It also doubts the act of learned S.D.M. and the way in which he was working, having responsibility to maintain the law and order. Interval between both the orders comes less than a month that is followed by unfair act in passing the impugned order of learned S.D.M., in any case is not liable to sustain. It is made clear that other points raised on behalf of petitioner and replied by opposite party no.2 is not taking into 4 consideration for deciding the differences between the parties are left open for them. In the above facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 passed in Cr. Revision no. 234/06 along with order dated 10.5.2006 passed by S.D.M., Manjhaul in Case No. 137M/06 is quashed. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)