Criminal Miscellaneous No.26513 OF 1999 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ 1.BHAGWAN LAL SAH son of Ram Baran Sah 2.Raghubir Sah son of chhathu Sah Both are resident of Mohalla and P.S.-Brahmpura, P.O.-M.I.T. Muzaffarpur, Subdivision Muzaffarpur (East). Dist.-Muzaffarpur ….. ….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sudhakar Sharma, son of late Baleshwar Thakur Resident of mohalla and P.S.-Brahmpura, P.O.-M.I.T., Muzaffarpur, Dist.-Muzaffarur. …… ……Opp. Parties -------- For the petitioners : Ratan Kumar Sinha For the State: Mr. Amarendra Prasad, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2: None. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.7.1999 passed by Sub.Divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur (East) in Case No.M316 of 1999 (Sudhakar Sharma Vs. Bhagwan Lal Sah). By the said order, the learned Magistrate has converted a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of a petition filed by opposite party no.2. 2. Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while referring to paragraph-9 of the petition, stated that they had purchased the land in question from his vendor, who was a party in a partition suit. The vendor after obtaining permission from the court where partition suit was 2 pending, had transferred the land to the petitioners by executing sale deeds. Thereafter, the petitioners got peaceful possession over the land in question and the land was also mutated in their names. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the fact that the petitioners in Case No. M316 of 1999 had filed a detailed show cause disclosing the fact that a civil case was pending before this court, still the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. It has further been submitted that a proceeding initiated under section 145 Cr.P.C. may not be allowed to proceed for an indefinite period. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Amarendra Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. He has supported the impugned order. 4. In this case despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, neither any one appeared on his behalf during hearing of the present case nor any affidavit was filed on his behalf. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on the record including statement made in the petition. The petitioners have made specific statement in paragraph-9 of the petition which is as follows: “That after receipt of the notice the petitioner appeared and filed his show cause and stated that he has purchased the land in dispute on 9.12.1998 by a registered kebala no.23090 and came in possession and his name was also 3 Patna High Court The 6th July, 2010 Md.S/NAFR. mutated and he is paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is further stated that there is a dispute pending in between his vendor and Sudhakar Sharma before this Hon’ble Court in F.A. No.305 of 1985 and his vendor filed petition for permission to sell the disputed land vide I.A. No.2806 of 1998 and after hearing the parties the order was passed on 21.7.1998 and against that order, Sudhakar Sharma filed L.P.A. No.942 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on 10.9.1998 and then he again filed review petition on 20.11.1998 and after hearing the parties, the review petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P.Sharma on 22.2.99.” 6. In view of assertion made in the petition, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was not required to convert the proceeding which was initiated under section 144 Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)