IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53454 of 2007 1. Baldeo Sutihar, son of Moti Sutihar. 2. Rajendra Sutihar, Son of Ganga Sutihar. Both resident of Village- Bhagwanpur(Tiri), P.S. Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa..................................................Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sudhir Mishra, Son of Rajpati Mishra, resident of Village- Bhagwanpur(Tiri), P.S. Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa. ........Opposite Parties. -------- For the petitioners : M/S. Suman Kumar Jha and Abinash Kumar Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/S. Ashutosh Kumar and Amar Nath Jha, Advocates. -------- O R D E R The second party to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. being Misc. Case No. 343 of 2006 have prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.7.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa, whereby he has converted the said proceeding into one under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and the consequential order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Rev. No. 205 of 2006 whereby while dismissing the revision, he has confirmed the order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa. The aforesaid proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated on the basis of a police report received from Sour Bazar P.S. on the application of one Sudhir Mishra, who is impleaded herein as O.P.No.2. The bone of contention was 4 Kathas 10 Dhoors of land appertaining to Khata No. 275, Kheshra No. 6418(New), 5213(Old). It further appears that the second party filed their show cause and - 2 - relevant papers with respect to their claim over the lands in question and placed their arguments based on the relevant documents. The first party neither filed any show cause nor produced any documents in support of their claim over the lands in dispute before the learned Magistrate. However, on being satisfied the learned Magistrate vide order dated 3.7.2006 converted the said proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. into one under Section 145 Cr. P. C. holding that there was bonafide land dispute between the parties and apprehension of breach of peace. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the second party preferred Cr. Rev. No. 205 of 2006 before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa. As before the Sessions Court so before this Court, the second party-petitioners have submitted that the lands in question was acquired by Moti Sutihar, the father of the petitioner no.1, by virtue of a registered sale deed no. 3094 of 1938 and Jamabandi No. 816 is running in the Government sherista and the recent survey indicates the name of Moti Sutihar, the father of petitioner no.1, and as such, the petitioner Baldeo Sutihar has been in continuous possession over the lands in dispute since 1938. The grievance of the petitioners is that the two courts below have failed to consider this aspect of continuous possession as would be apparent from the sale deed, Jamabandi and recent Khatiyan and apparently there could be no dispute with respect to the said lands. - 3 - The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lands over which the proceeding has been converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. has not been specified as would be apparent from the order dated 3.7.2006 as no mouza, police station and the district have been shown which is in violation of the said principles of law that the lands in question must be specified. The learned counsel for O.P.No.2 countered the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that where the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. was initiated on the police report, the non-mentioning of the findings about bonafide dispute over the property and apprehension of breach of peace will not vitiate the order of the Magistrate. He further submitted that it would be apparent from the impugned order of the Learned Magistrate that he converted the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P. C. into one under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on being fully satisfied that there was an apprehension of breach of peace over a bonafide land dispute which are the Sine Qua Non for converting a proceeding from one under Section 144 Cr. P. C. into one 145 Cr. P. C. From the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, it would appear that he has recorded his satisfaction regarding the bonafide land dispute and of there being an apprehension of breach of peace resulting therefrom. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the Magistrate not having specified the lands in respect whereof the proceeding had been - 4 - initiated, I am of the opinion that the said submission is a statement of despair which is only to be noticed to be rejected. The whole purpose of specifying the lands in dispute is to identify the lands in respect whereof the dispute has arisen and the proceeding has been initiated. The learned Magistrate in his impugned order has carefully given the area, the Khata and the old and new plot numbers so as to identify the lands and no grievance can be raised against the same. So far as the question of the Ist party not filing their show cause is concerned, that would be fatal. Since from the police report and the show cause filed by the second party the Magistrate had satisfied himself that a bonafide land dispute existed between the parties over which there is an apprehension of breach of peace and the same can be solved only in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Apparently there does not appear any illegality, impropriety or irregularities in the said orders as also in the order of the learned Sessions Court which confirmed the same. For the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court Dated: the 21st July, 2009 U.K./A.F.R.