IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1471 of 2007 1. RADHY SHYAM RAI 2. CHHOTE RAI 3. RAVINDRA RAI( 1 TO 3 ARE SONS OF LATE SUKHDEO RAI) 4. DILIP RAI @ DILIP KUMAR 5. MUKESH RAI @ MUKESH KUMAR( 4 & 5 SONS OF RADHY SHYAM RAI -- IIND PARTY/APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MUNNA RAI 3. TUNNA KUMAR ( BOTH SONS OF LATE KAPILDEO RAI) -- IST PARTY/RESPONDENT/OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 03 08.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners are the second party to the proceeding initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as the Code). Petitioners assails the order dated 03.01.2007 whereby learned Magistrate directed for execution of bond(s) for maintaining peace for a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal no. 51 of 2007 which was considered and rejected by order dated 04.08.2007. Learned revisional Court found as under:- “6. I perused the entire case record and report of the police and evidence which led by both the parties and also perused the impugned order. It is obviously clear from the evidence and fact and circumstances of the case that there is specific overt act of the incident which committed by the appellants with the first party Munna Rai and witnesses adduced on behalf of the first party are consistent on the point of factum of incident. In this case this fact is well proved that there is an apprehension of breach of peace on behalf of the appellants. So the learned lower court has passed his reasoned and explained order and I find no ground for interfering in the impugned order and the 2 contention raised by the appellants are devoid of merit. Accordingly the appeal of the petitioners is hereby dismissed.” It is seen from the order of learned Executive Magistrate that both the parties were allowed to file show causes and lead evidence. On perusal of the oral evidence as well as the show causes it was found that second party (petitioners) were aggressive and tried to disturb the peace. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land for which the occurrence had taken place belonged to them by virtue of a decree passed by a competent civil Court and as such proceeding was unwarranted. He relies on a judgment of this Court (Ranchi Bench) reported in 1984(32) BLJR 454 (Zaffar Khan vs Ram Mahto & Ors.). I have perused the judgment. The Court was dealing with the matter where the Magistrate converted 107/116 of the Code proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. In a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, the Court is not concerned with the title and/or possession of a party to a piece of land. In view of the findings recorded by the Courts below I am not inclined to interfere therewith. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the order(s). Application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)