IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53572 of 2006 JOGENDRA SAH, Son of Hargobind Sah, R/o village Mansi, Rajput Tola, P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajendra Pandit, R/o Mansi Rajput Tola, P.S. Mansi, District Khagaria ….. Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Dronacharya Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : M/s Mritunjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar, Advocates O R D E R The second party to a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C., being Case No. 15M of 1985, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by Sri Syed Ahmad Danish, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Khagaria, in Cr. Revision No. 137 of 2003, whereby while dismissing the said revision, learned Judge has confirmed the order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria, in the aforesaid proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. holding possession of the first party over the lands in dispute. The bone of contention appears to be 2 kathas of land appertaining to khata no. 158, khesra no. 184 bounded on the North by the lands of kharidar, on the South road, on the East lands of Basant Mistri and on the West Radha Rai and Rameshwar. The factum of the case is that the aforesaid proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided in favour of the first party, whereby the lands were held to be in his possession. The learned Magistrate appears to have examined as many as 8 witnesses on 2 behalf of the first party. Similarly witnesses of the second party were also examined and the documents filed by the parties appear to have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 6.5.2003. The proceeding unfortunately had proceeded at a snail’s pace for almost 18 years and thankfully the learned Magistrate by a detailed order and assigning cogent reasons passed the order dated 6.5.2003. The present petitioner challenged the said order before the Sessions Court in Cr. Revision No. 137 of 2003 which was dismissed by order dated 16.6.2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Khagaria, again by an order assigning cogent reasons. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to be the fact that he had not been heard. This does not appear to be the correct position as would be apparent from the orders passed by the Court below. To my mind the revision court has rightly observed that the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot decide title of any of the parties. That apart there is a forum provided under law for deciding disputes regarding the title of a person and it would only be appropriate for the petitioner herein to move that forum in respect of right, title and interest in the allegedly disputed property. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Through the instant application the petitioner herein, who also was the revisionist, has sought to challenge the order of revisional court in 3 the garb of an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. It goes without saying that a second revision is barred but there are cases wherein it has been held that the revisional court’s order can be challenged by the revisionist under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. but only in rare cases and that too where there appears jurisdictional error writ large on the face of the order/record, which is not the case here. Having perused and examined the orders of the two courts below I find no apparent illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in any of those orders. Unfortunately in the instant case a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. has dragged on for almost 24 years and no gainful purpose will be served by interfering with the impugned orders after 24 years. That apart since there is apparently no illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from jurisdictional error I find no apparent merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 1st of July, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)