IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.834 of 2010 UPENDRA KUMAR CHOUDARY SON OF LATE KESHO SINGG RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - P.O. KESHRI, P.S. DHANGAIN, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR (ARRAH) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 3. SUB-DIVISI0NAL OFFICER, JAGDISHPUR, BHOJPUR. 4. BASHISTH TIWARY SON OF LATE RAMAYAN TIWARY 5. NARAD TIWARY SON OF LATE RAMJEE TIWARY. 6. ARUN TIWARY SON OF LATE RAMJEE TIWARY RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANGAIN, P.O. KESHRI DHANGAIN DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) ----------- 03. 10.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This writ application is filed for quashing the part of the order dated 7th of June 2010 passed in Criminal Revision N0. 3 of 2010 whereby Sessions Judge disposed of the revision application holding that when the subject matter of dispute is under consideration in civil Title Suit No. 476 of 2009 for declaration of title and possession the question of considering the claim of possession in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 the parties of Civil Suit are bound by the decision of the Civil Court with respect to the title and possession. Notwithstanding the above, it is well settled that even during the pendency of the suit if any untoward incident happens with respect to the suit property besides taking appropriate action in the suit, it will be open for the petitioner to seek protection from the administration as permissible under the law. In case, petitioner approaches the concerned authority i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3, the same would be considered in accordance with law. The writ applications stand disposed of with the above observations and directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)