IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1266 of 2005 MD. HASNAIN KHAN, SON OF LATE ISMAIL KHAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KABIRPUR, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. FARUOQUE AZAM, SON OF LATE SIDDIQUE HUSSAIN. 3. MD. ISRAFIL KHAN, SON OF MD. JALIL KHAN. 4. MD. KASIM KHAN, SON OF LATE SALIM HUSSAIN ALIAS ATA HUSSAIN. 5. MD. KAISH, SON OF MD. BAGHDIR ALIAS KASIM(PHUDDAN). 6. MD. SHAKEEL KHAN, SON OF MD. AZIZ KHAN ALIAS JALEEL KHAN. 7. HALEEM KHAN, SON OF LATE ATA HUSSAIN. 8. MD. AKEEL KHAN, SON OF LATE ATA HUSSAIN KHAN. 9. NUSRAT WIFE OF MD. KASIM. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KABIRPUR, P.S. LALMATIA, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Radha Raman Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.Ps. : None. ---------- 7. 27.2.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who happens to be a member of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. being Misc. Case No.402 of 2004, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bhagalpur , whereby he has decided the possession of the parties over the disputed land notwithstanding there being a decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner in respect of the disputed lands. Notice was duly issued to the members of the opposite parties who were the first party in the said proceeding before the learned Magistrate and although they have appeared by filing vakalatnama, curiously neither they nor their accredited lawyer was present in court. - 2 - I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and I find that although he has mentioned the relevant documents filed by both the parties, he does not explain as to why he has accepted some of them and not accepted the remaining others including the decree of the Civil Court Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration and passing necessary orders after hearing the parties. With the aforesaid observations, this application is allowed. It is hereby directed that since the litigation is of the year 2004 and four years have since passed, the learned Magistrate will make an attempt to conclude the case preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)