IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.820 of 2010 1. SUKHJINDRA SINGH son of Sri Karnail Singh, resident of M/s Bhargo Saw Mill, Khagaul Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.- Patna. 2. Navdeep Singh son of Sri Karnail Singh, resident of M/s Bhargo Saw Mill, Khagaul Road, Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanpur, Distt.-Patna. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, Patna. 3. The Officer-in-charge, Mehdiganj police station, Patna City, District- Patna. 4. Smt. Vijya Singh wife of Dr. Yashwant singh, resident of village- Paijawan, P.S. Mehadiganj, District- Patna. . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : M/s Mrigank Mauli, Vinay Mistry, Advocates For the State : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, G.A.-3 ----------- 2/ 21.09.2010 In the instant writ application, the petitioners have challenged the very jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, Patna to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., bearing Misc. Case no. 397 of 2010, vide order dated 19.07.2010, whereby he has also restrained both the parties from going over the disputed land and making construction over the same. The petitioners submit that earlier also a proceeding in respect of same plot was initiated at the request of respondent no.4, which was recently dropped vide order dated 17.06.2010, passed in Misc. Case no. 233 of 2010. Besides this, respondent no.4 has already filed a title suit bearing Title Suit no. 104 of 2010, in respect of land in question in the court of Sub-Judge-I. Before I deal with the issue, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. The dispute relates to 61 decimals of land of Tauzi no.19, Thana no.19, Khesara no. 2587, plot no. 200 Jamabandi no. 698 situated 2 in Mauza Ranipur, P.S. Mehadiganj, District Patna. The petitioners claim to be the owner of the land in dispute, which they purchased through registered sale deed dated 17.09.2009. The petitioners got the land mutated on 07.11.2009 and 22.02.2010 respectively. The respondent no.4 filed an application for initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. giving rise to Misc. Case no. 233 of 2010. The respondent no.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City after hearing the parties was pleased to drop the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. by order dated 17.06.2010 passed in Misc. Case no. 233 of 2010 observing that the dispute relates to adjudication of title and the same can be best resolved in appropriate civil suit. On 02.07.2010, respondent no.4 lodged Mehandiganj P.S. case no. 26 of 2010, in which the petitioners are not accused. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, respondent no.4 filed another application for initiating proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. praying therein to restrain the opposite parties from going near the land in dispute. On the basis of the application of the petitioners, the instant Misc. Case no. 377 of 2010 was initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. On 19.07.2010 itself both the parties were restrained from going over to the land. The petitioners submit that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City does not have jurisdiction to initiate repeated 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding over the same land, time and again on same ground. He further submits that the impugned order is bad in law, as in respect of the land, a Title suit bearing Title Suit no. 104 of 2010 has been filed by respondent no.-4, in which a petition of injunction under order XXXIX 3 Rules 1 and 2 has been filed. Learned counsel submits that in case of Kumar Fateh Singh & Another Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1972 Cr.L.J. 1655, this Court has held that proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not decide right of parties and it lapses after 60 days. Learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Acharya Jagdishwar Anand Avadhelta etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Another, reported in A.I.R. 1984 SC 51 has held that repeated resort to proceeding under 144 Cr.P.C. would not be a legitimate exercise. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State raised the issue of maintainability of this writ jurisdiction. He submits that petitioners ought to have moved a quashing application in stead of moving this Court in writ jurisdiction. On the other hand Mr. Mauli, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the writ petition would be maintainable, as the very jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate repeated resort under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has been challenged. I find substance in submission of Mr. Mauli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. There cannot be dispute to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that repeated resort to 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding in respect of the same land, on same grounds would not be legitimate. However, as notice has not been issued to private respondent no.4, this Court would not like to dwell in the thickets of the issues raised herein. It appears that the life of 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding is only of 60 days, which has already elapsed. It is well settled that the findings recorded under section 144 Cr.P.C. is not final and would not affect the right of the parties nor it would prejudice their interest. 4 In view of the above, this writ application is disposed of with observation that any finding recorded in 144 Cr.P.C. would not prejudice or bind effect either of the parties, nor the same would be deemed to be final. This application, accordingly, stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)