IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30611 of 2009 1. LAKHANLAL MANDAL, Son of late Chintamani Mandal 2. Ratan Kumar Mandal, Son of late Sidheshwar Mandal 3. Ranjan Kumar Mandal, Son of late Sidheshwar Mandal 1 to 3 above Resident of Village Lohari, P.S. Chanan, District Banka. 4. Pradip Mandal, Son of late Lalgovind Mandal. 5. Kamdeo Mandal, Son of Jaigopal Mandal 6. Parmanand Mandal, Son of late Jai Gopal Mandal 7. Yadu Mandal alias Jaideo Mandal, Son of Jai Gopal Mandal 4 to 7 above Resident of Village Rarhiya, PS Mohanpur, District Deoghar 8. Om Prakash Mandal, Son of late Sudarshan Mandal 9. Santosh Kumar Mandal, Son of late Satsaran Mandal 10. Parsuram Mandal, Son of Satya Saran Mandal 11. Anil Kumar Mandal alias Anil Mandal, Son of Satya Saran Mandal 12. Chandana Devi, Wife of Lakhanlal Mandal 13. Kunti Devi, Wife of late Suraj Mandal 14. Bindeshwari Devi, Wife of Shri Chandramani Mandal 15. Siyaram Mandal, Son of Satya Saran Mandal 16. Ganesh Mandal, Son of late Doman Mandal 8 to 16 above Resident of village Lohari, PS Chanan, District Banka. ----- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chhoti Yadav, Son of Ramlal Yadav, Resident of Village & P.O. Lohari, P.S. Chandan, District Banka ----- Opposite Parties For the petitioner :- Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 6.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Cr. Revision No. 215/2007 setting aside the order dropping the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order withdrawing the attachment. It is apparent that the S.D.O. on the basis of the written statement and on the basis of the report of the police officer has dropped the proceeding without actually going into the 2 evidence and taking evidence with respect to the issue in question i.e. possession of the land. It is not proper for this Court to comment on the merits of the case of either of the parties. I find that there is no anomaly and illegality in the revisional order dated 27.7.2009 and as such this application is dismissed. It is made clear that the proceeding under Section 145 should be expeditiously disposed of preferably within a period of six months. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)