IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.146 of 2006 RANJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : Sri Indu Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Sr. Adv., ‘’ Shashi Nath Jha, Adv., For the opposite party no. 2 : : Sri Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. 6. 21.8.2008. This Cr. Revision has been filed against the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by S.D.M, Sadar, Patna in Case No. 588/M/05 thereby the proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has been converted into section 145 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is wholly illegal and bad in law. There is no dispute with regard to possession of any piece of land. The dispute is with regard to opening of windows etc. on the side of opposite party’s house. It is further submitted that the right claimed by opposite party is a civil right for which he can approach the civil court under appropriate suit for redressal of his grievance. No proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or 147 Cr.P.C. can be drawn up for grant of alleged relief. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party submitted that the right claimed by opposite party is easementary rights and therefore the proceeding can legally proceed after converting it one under Section 147 Cr.P.C. for which there is provision in the section itself. - 2 - Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also perused Sections 145 and 147 Cr.P.C. On perusal, it appears that Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case as there is no dispute in respect of actual possession of any piece of land. So far applicability of Section 147 Cr.P.C. is concerned it is also not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the opposite party is not claiming right for user over any land or water. Actually, opposite party is claiming right of privacy, air etc. which is civil right. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the rights claimed by the opposite party no. 2 come within the civil right for which remedy lies before the civil court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Cr. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.9.2005 passed by S.D.M, Sadar, Patna in Case No. 588/M/05 is hereby set aside. However, opposite party no. 2 is at liberty to approach the civil court through appropriate suit for relief against the petitioner. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)