Criminal Miscellaneous No.30299 OF 1999 ------- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ CHANDRA BHAN PRASAD SON OF TULLI MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARI PAHARI, P.S.MURARPUR,DISTRICT NALANDA------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.GAJJU MAHTO SON OF TARA MAHTO 3.PAWAN KUMAR PRABHAKAR SON OF PRAN MAHTO 4.RAMSEWAK MAHTO SON OF TARA MAHTO 5.JAGESHWAR PRASAD SON OF HELU MAHTO 6.HEERA MAHTO SON OF TARA MAHTO ALL RESIDENT OF BARI PAHARI, P.S.LAHARI,DISTRICT NALANDA ----- OPP.PARTIES ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Chandra For the State : Dr.Maya Nand Jha, APP For opp.party nos. 2 to 6 : Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ----- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.8.1999 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr.Revision No.191 of 1994. By the said order the Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 10.5.1994 passed in Case No.787(M) of 1987/Tr. No.143 of 1993 by Sri S.N.Singh, Executive Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. By order dated 10.5.1994 the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had declared possession over plot no. 657 measuring an area of four Kathas of Bari Pahari, Biharsharif, Nalanda, in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing 2 the present petition for setting aside the revisional order, has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate was required to decide the title of either of the parties over the land in question and without deciding the possession over the disputed land, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error and on this ground the revisional order dated 27.8.1999 is liable to be set aside. 3. In the case, opposite party no.2 to 6 have entered their appearance through a counsel Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 6 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted by him that, while setting aside the order of the Magistrate, the revisional court had committed no mistake. He further submitted that a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a panacea to settle all the disputes. It was further argued that, such provision is prescribed only with an object to prevent emergent apprehension of breach of peace. It was further argued that in the present case a proceeding was initially initiated in the year 1987 and, as such, after lapse of about 23 years it would not be appropriate to set aside the order of the revisional court and restore the order which was passed long back on 10.5.1994. It was further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that such a dispute can be settled by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 6 prays for rejection of this 3 Patna High Court The 7th July,2010, Md.S./NAFR petition. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record, particularly, the impugned order dated 27.8.1999 passed in Cr.Revision No.191 of 1994 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Nalanda at Biharsharif. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has minutely examined the materials available on the record. It was noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that before deciding possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioner, the Magistrate had not at all examined the matter nor he recorded his own finding. Only he has recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered that, in such a situation, the appropriate course is to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction and, as such, he has rightly quashed the order dated 10.5.1994 passed by the learned Magistrate. This court is of the opinion that after such a long period, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order of revisional court. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)