IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25665 of 2007 SRIMATI JAYANTI DEVI, W/o Ram Roop Sharma, R/o Red Cross Road, Adampur, P.S. Adampur, District Bhagalpur …… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Smt. Anjana Kumari/ W/o Amrendra Kumar 3. Sanjay Roy, Son of Hira Lal Yadav, Both residents of Red Cross Road, Adampur, P.S. Adampur, District Bhagalpur …. Opp. Parteis. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Shiv Nandan Roy, Sr. Advocate & Rama Sinha, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajiv Roy, Advocate O R D E R The first party in a proceeding under section 147 Cr.P.C., being Misc. Case No. 1098, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26.11.2004 passed therein by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bhagalpur, whereby he has dropped the proceeding as also the consequential order dated 28.4.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Bhagalpur, whereby he has dismissed the revision preferred against order dated 26.11.2004. The case of the petitioner is that she had filed an application for initiating a proceeding under section 147 Cr.P.C. in respect of khata no. 223 Khesra no. 963 appertaining to an area of 580 Sq. feet, 10 feet wide East to West and 52 feet in length running North to South. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the local police and having received the 2 report which recommended for action under section 147 Cr.P.C. the said proceeding was initiated against both parties who were noticed to file their respective written statements and adduce evidence. Both parties submitted their written statements and documents to establish their respective claims and on perusing the same the learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding on findings that the sale deed of the second party which dates back to the year 1993 shows only 4 feet common passage and that the claim of the first party of 10 feet for common passage was without any basis. The revision preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that when the police report recommended for a proceeding under section 147 Cr.P.C. in view of the existing dispute in respect of the raasta, the learned Magistrate had acted with material irregularity in dismissing the proceeding without taking any evidence, moreso when the dispute was over the width of the said raasta the existence whereof is admitted by both parties and the court ought to have decided the same. I have perused both the orders, both of the learned Magistrate as also the revisional court. I am of the opinion that the matter relates to a civil dispute as both the parties are purchasers from the same person and both deeds with map are indicative of the raasta being 4 feet wide whereas the first party petitioner herein has made a claim of the raasta being 10 feet wide for which there does not exist any basis. Admittedly the raasta is not for 3 usage of the public at large but for the private use of the parties in litigation. The claim of the petitioner for road being declared of the width of 10 feet cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 147 Cr.P.C. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 28th of May, 2009 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)