IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43632 of 2009 NARAYAN MAHTO, S/o Late Gulabchand Mahto, R/o Village- Amraura, P.O.-Amraura, P.S.-Tharthari(Chandi), District-Nalanda. …First Party/Petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Badari Narain Mahto, S/o Late Raudi Mahto, R/o Village- Amraura, P.S.-Tharthari(Chandi), District-Nalanda. ….. Second Party/Opposite Party. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.P.Singh, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Nath Biswas, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P. ----------- 3 02-07-2010 Petitioner/first party to a proceeding initiated under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has approached this court seeking quashment of the order dated 24.01.2005 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa in Case NO. 335(M)/2000(Annexure-5). The revisional order dated 28-10-2009 passed by the Learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision NO. 49/05(Annexure-6) is also under challenge. Heard both sides. There is no dispute between the parties that this proceeding is an off shoot of case no. 344M/65 which is continuing since 1965. As on today, some of the original parties to the proceeding is/are no more. They have been substituted at different stages of the proceeding. It appears that on different occasion the matter was referred to the court of law under section 146 Cr.P.C. (as they stood prior to the amendment) whereafter adjudications in respect of part of the lands in dispute were made. 2 It is the stand of the petitioner that in respect of 14 out of 17 plots in dispute, an adjudication and decision with respect to possession was rendered by the Civil Court. On several occasions this matter has travelled to this court at the instance of the parties. One of such order is enclosed as Annexure-3 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6613 of 1988(Narayan Mahto V. State of Bihar & Others. By the order impugned passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, a permission has been accorded to auction/settle the lands in dispute with the intending bidders for cultivation. Learned counsels for both the parties are in agreement that from the materials on record, it now cannot be said to be a case where emergent situation is required to be dealt with by the learned Magistrate. There seems to be a long standing dispute with regard to title over the lands in question between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Chandra Rai Vs. State of Bihar(1991 BBCJ Vs. State of Bihar, 100) in order to submit that if there is no urgent situation causing apprehension of breach of peace then continuance of such a proceeding for a long time is neither advisable nor permissible in law. This is what the Division Bench has observed in Paragraph-5 of the aforesaid judgment: “While provision of section 144 of the Code deal with urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, the provision of section 145 of the Code also deals with a situation when an apprehension of breach of peace exists or continues. In this view of 3 the matter, the provisions of these two sections can be said to be for urgent steps to be taken by a Magistrate to meet any apprehension of breach of peace. As such these provisions are in the nature of emergency provisions. If, however, a proceeding under section 145 of the Code remains pending for more than seven years without any fresh allegation of an apprehension of breach of peace we feel that such a proceeding should not be allowed to continued beyond this period since obviously it cannot be said that there is any longer any urgency in the matter. In the meantime, the parties will have ample opportunity to go to a civil court of competent jurisdiction to get their right, title or interest as also their claim for possession over the disputed land decided finally instead of going to the Magistrate under section 145 of the Code. If the proceeding under section 145 of the Code under the aforesaid condition is allowed to continue beyond a period of seven years, in our view the very purpose of the judicial process gets defeated. Any such proceeding cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely if there is no apprehension of breach of peace or any new dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning land or water or boundaries thereof. It also goes against the principle of expeditious disposal of the cases. No harm is likely to be caused to the parties who can seek the redressal of their grievances in civil court by competent jurisdiction.” This court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As noticed above, the present proceeding is pending since last several decades. New generations of the parties to the proceeding have been brought on record. This court is not able to gather from the pleadings and/or impugned order that there is any emergent situation existing in relation to the lands in question giving any short of justification for continuance 4 of this proceeding for such a long time. As noticed in the judgment referred to above, parties have ample opportunities to take recourse to the court of competent jurisdiction and to get their right, title and interest decided in accordance with the law and if necessary to get interim orders passed therein. On this ground alone this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Parties have not demonstrated before this court that there are continued apprehension of breach of peace or situations alike relating to disputed lands, which requires to be dealt with in terms of provisions contained under section 145 Cr.P.C. On that ground alone, I am persuaded to quash the entire proceeding being Case NO. 335(M)/2000 pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa at Nalanda. This court once again clarifies that this order shall not be construed as a bar in initiating a fresh proceeding if the situation so warrants. This court only observes that it would be in the interest of the parties to seek appropriate remedy in a Civil Court by instituting appropriate suit and seeking interim orders/injunction, if any, from the court. The application is accordingly disposed of. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)