IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3057 of 2009 1. KAROO YADAV. 2. Pradeep Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 29.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.2008 of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 7 of 2005 taking cognizance under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. Strong reliance is placed on a civil Court judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 80 of 2003 to urge that the petitioner is the lawful owner of Khata No. 1035, Plot No. 1140 having an area of 0.94 acres in pursuance of a declaration by a competent civil Court. The proceedings against him are therefore an abuse of the process of law. Counsel for the State points out from the allegations that the land appears to be Garmajarua Aam land in nature and construction is alleged to be made despite direction not to do so upon the lands in question. The petitioner undoubtedly appears to be 2 having a civil Court decree in his favour. But Paragraph- 6 of the judgment of the civil Court decree leaves this Court thoroughly dissatisfied in the nature of the discussion when no one appeared for the State of Bihar, no written statement was filed and the suit was decreed ex parte. Nonetheless it remains a valid decree. But there is no pleading in the application that this judgment has attained finality and has not been questioned by the State in any superior Court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it difficult at this stage to interfere in the mater in absence of necessary pleadings. The dismissal of this application shall not prejudice the petitioners in any manner at any subsequent stage of the proceedings if they raise their objections in accordance with law. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)