IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3370 of 2008 RAM NARESH SINGH …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. URMILA DEVI 3. BHIKHARI THAKUR …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr. Baxi S.R.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate For r the State :Mr.Nityanand Tiwary, APP For o.p.nos. 2 & 3 :Mr. Ashok kumar Jha & : Mr. Chandeshwar Kumar Kachyap ----- 04. 16.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the second party to the proceeding which has been initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). He is also aggrieved by revisional order dated 08.11.2007 passed in Cr. Rev. No.242/2006, whereby the revision preferred by him was considered and dismissed with the following observations/conclusions in paragraph 8: “For the institution of the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. the very basis for the Magistrate to assume the jurisdiction is his subjective satisfaction that such a dispute which is likely to cause a breach of piece exists. In the instant case it is clear that there had been dispute between the parties u/s 144 Cr.P.C., though the aforesaid proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. was dropped on 4.5.06 and the aforesaid order dated, 4.5.2006 showed that there had been dispute between the parties and it was within the competence of learned lower Court to draw the proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C. on the basis of the petition filed by Awadhesh Thakur, the husband of O.P. Urmila Devi. Moreover, the opportunity had been given to the revisionist Ram Naresh Singh to file his show cause in the aforesaid case and their appears no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order of learned lower Court for calling any interference 2 in the order dated 18.5.06 and the criminal revision petition filed by revisionist Ram Naresh Singh is, hereby, dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that few days prior to the present order a proceeding between the parties initiated under section 144 of the Code was dropped by order dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure-1). It is the submission of the petitioner that the 1st party indulged in fraudulent acts by forging documents in order to lay claim which was taken note of by learned Magistrate while disposing of the earlier proceeding. I have perused the order dated 18.05.2006. Learned Magistrate recorded his subjective satisfaction with regard to the apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the parties to the proceeding in relation to a piece of land and has initiated the proceeding. Learned revisional court has already found the said initiation of proceeding in accordance with law. I am thus not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned as they cannot be said to be wholly perverse and/or purfunctury. The petitioner will have adequate opportunity to take all these grounds in the show cause which shall now be filed on behalf of the petitioner (2nd party). With the aforesaid observation the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )