IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2374 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR BHAGAT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 16.4.2010 Heard Shri Sheo Nandan Rai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dwivedi Surendra, learned APP for the state. The petition seeks quashing of order dated 6.5.2006 passed by the S.D.M., Tarapur in Case No. 80 of 2006 by which a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated by converting the one earlier drawn up under section 144 of the Code. I have gone through the order and I find that there is no illegality in initiating fresh proceeding under section 145 of the Code by converting the earlier one under section 144 of the Code. However, while perusing the impugned order I found that the learned Executive Magistrate has mentioned in his order that while deciding the disputed question of possession, in the light of imminent apprehension of breach of peace, it was necessary for the court below also to decide the question of title and the share of the parties to the proceedings. This may be pointed out to the learned Executive Magistrate that the two questions as regards the decision of title and the shares of the parties to the proceeding or persons who could be holding some interest in the properties is completely out of the domain of the Executive Magistrate and his powers under 2 section 145 of the Code. He has only to decide as to who, on the date on which the order under section 145(1) of the Code was drawn up or on a date two months prior to that date, was in actual physical possession of the properties. The court below, as such is directed not to go into the question of disputed title or shares of the parties and confine its jurisdiction only to decide the disputed question of possession. It was informed during the course of present hearing that a house was standing over the disputed property and the petitioner claimed residing therein. The above contention was based on certain reports especially the police report which also, as per the submission, mentions of a building standing thereon. It hardly requires to be pointed out that proceeding under section 145 of the Code is not prohibitory in nature and, as such it could not affect the right of any person who could be in possession of a property as regards its use. However, the proceedings, by its very nature, may create some difficulty for the person and as such it is required that the court below be directed to take up the hearing of the proceeding with all ado and dispose it of in a period of three months from the date the court below receives a copy of the present order. The court below shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties and ensure that its orders are duly complied with as regards the filing of written statement and submission of evidence in documentary form besides production of witnesses before it. The court below shall also try to ensure that 3 no unnecessary witness is examined by him. The petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned direction/observation. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)