IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32565 of 2008 Ramautar Yadav, son of Rajinandan Yadav, village Laxman Dera Chakki, PS Brahampur, Dist. Buxar – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Ram Pravesh Yadav, son of Chaturanand Yadav, 3) Hare Krishna Yadav, son of Hari Charan Yadav @ Motak Yadav, 4) Vinod Yadav, son of Hare Krishna Yadav, 5) Baliram Yadav, son of Jawahar Yadav, 6) Govind Yadav, son of Jagdish Yadav, 7) Jay Prakash Yadav, son of Jagdish Yadav, 8) Pappu Yadav, son of Jawahar Yadav, all of Laxmandera, Ps Brahampur, District Buxar – Opp. Parties 1st Set. 9) Shiya Ram Yadav, son of Sheo Narayan Yadav, 10) Dina Yadav, son of Late Sidhi Yadav, 11) Kanhaiya Yadav, son of Hardeo Yadav, 12) Sheo Bahadur Yadav, son of Late Hardeo Yadav, 13) Mahabir Yadav, son of Amar Yadav, 14) Dashrath Yadav, son of Dina Nath Yadav, 15) Hardeo Yadav, son of Hashi Nath Yadav, 16) Chabi Nath Yadav, son of Deo Nandan Yadav, 17) Chanar Yadav, son of Kashi Nath Yadav, 18) Harendra Yadav, son of Dev Nandan Yadav, 19) Babua Yadav, son of Hardeo Yadav, 20) Raju Yadav, son of Jangali Yadav, 21) Dinesh Yadav, son of Satan Yadav, all residents of Laxmandera, Ps Brahampur, District Buxar – Opp. Parties 2nd Set. 2 30.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order by which proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated which was later converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main ground for being aggrieved with the orders impugned dated 8.3.2008 and 22.4.2008 passed in Case No. 62(M) of 2008 and Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2008 is that both the Courts had not considered that the notice issued to the petitioner 2 vide Annexure-1 for initiating a proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding is defective inasmuch as it does not contain details regarding the plot, area or boundary. It is well settled by the several decisions of this Court that such a notice is defective. This Court may note that the proceedings have been pending since 11.1.2008/18.3.2008 without any progress. Therefore, the question that arises before this Court is whether there is any requirement or whether there is any apprehension of breach of peace for initiating the proceedings? Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the name of the petitioner is mutated for a piece of land which is disputed by the opposite parties. They have lost before the Circle Officer and the D.C.L.R. and have now filed a title suit for declaration of their title. It is submitted that under these circumstances, a proceeding cannot be initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the scope of both the proceedings is similar. This aspect of the matter needs no comment of this Court for the present. This Court is not issuing notice to the opposite parties who are 20 in number. It would cause great delay and the result would be the same, as it concerns a law point and is not binding on the claims of the parties. In this context, this Court cannot help noticing, that if the second party was aggrieved by the fact that after initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the matter has not proceeded, they would have taken certain steps in the matter which apparently 3 they have not done. Be that as it may, I quash the orders impugned with liberty to the parties to file a fresh application for proceeding, if in case, there is apprehension of breach of peace. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)