IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.41215 OF 2008 MOST.BECHAN DEVI @ BACHAN DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PRASD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SUTAPATTI, SHYAM MANDIR, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. PRAMOD SHANKAR, SON OF SHRI SATYA NARAIN PODDAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BANK COLONY, POLICE STATION AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFAPUR 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 28/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 27.06.2008 by which the application converting the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the Court below. The dispute arose with respect to allotment of a shop by the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. The Opposite Party No. 1 who is the firstly party in the 144 proceedings claims that there are three receipts in his favour. The receipts were produced and perused by the Court below. The petitioner has produced the receipts issued by the Zila Board with respect to the allotment of shop G-1. The boundaries are described. The Court below on consideration of the documents of both the 2 parties has come to the conclusion that the documents of Opposite Party No. 1, do not indicate that he was allotted the shop in question and as such, has held that conversion of the 144 proceedings into 145 proceedings is not maintainable. The question as to possession of a shop which has been allotted by the Government of semi- Government organizations is a question of fact which will depend on the documents of the parties. The parties who have document to indicate that they have been validly allotted the shop in question are entitled to say in Court that the application filed by the Opposite Party is frivolous and is aimed at creating a dispute and trying to gain illegal possession over the shop in question. Once, the Court has already concluded that the documents are in favour of Opposite Party No. 1, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)