IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2846 of 2007 SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8 3.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the other side. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.12.2006 passed by learned Session Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2006 and the order dated 23.10.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dehri in Case No. 356(M) of 2006. The petitioner is the second party. A proceeding under Section 144 was instituted against the first party (opposite parties) and the second party (petitioner). After discussing the cases of the parties the S.D.O. by order dated 23.10.2006 has converted a proceeding under Section 144 to one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had asked the parties to file their written statements. Being aggrieved with the order of the S.D.O. the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge in revision application. The Court below directed that the petitioner should file their written statements before the Court below and take the pleas that they had taken before him which would be disposed of by the S.D.O. after referring to the facts and the respective cases of the parties. I find that there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders of the S.D.O. or the Session Judge. In the result I direct the petitioner and the opposite parties to file their written statements before the S.D.O. who will decide the dispute on its own merits. - 2 - It is expected that the parties will cooperate with the S.D.O. and should not take unnecessary time. The S.D.O. will try and expedite the application so that further dispute arising out of this case may be prevented. Accordingly this application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan,J.)