CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22420 OF 2001 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- JAGAR NATH SINGH SON OF LATE SHANFA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARIGANJ KATIHAR WARD NO.21 OF KATIHAR MUNICIPALITY, P.S. & DISTRICT KATIHAR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH S.D.O. KATIHAR, SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIRCHAIBAR, KATIHAR. 2. MAHANT MADAN KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE MAHANTH PARCHAM DAS, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MADHUBANI PURNEA, P.S.K. HAT PURNEA) DISTRICT PURNEA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER KATIHAR, KATIHAR BLOCK, KATIHAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : M/S Praween Kr. Jaipuriyar, Adv. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Adv. For O.P. No.2 : M/S Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Raju Giri, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- 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 29.7.1999 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Katihar in Case No.132M of 1996, whereby a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of land appertaining to Khata No.23, C.S. 182 2 measuring 06.73 decimals. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of an order issued by the Circle Officer, Katihar, whereby the petitioner was noticed to vacate the land in question in the light of order passed by the Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No.132 of 1996. 2. In the case, initially a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the application filed by opposite party no.2. However, subsequently, on 29.7.1999, the proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and possession over the land in question was declared by the Executive Magistrate in favour of opposite party no.2. After the order was passed by the Executive Magistrate, the Circle Officer vide Annexure-2 directed the petitioner to vacate the land. 3. Shri Praween Kumar Jaipuriyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that immediately after receipt of the notice in the proceeding, the 3 petitioner had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate disclosing therein that for the same land in question, the opposite party no.2 had filed a suit vide Title Suit No.16 of 1992. It was also clarified that the petitioner was in peaceful possession over the land in question. Despite the fact that the petitioner had brought on record sufficient material the learned Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Shri Jaipuriyar has referred to Annexure-3 to the petition, which is a decree prepared in Title Suit No.16 of 1992. It was submitted that for the same land, which is in possession of the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 had filed aforesaid suit in the court of Sub Judge-III, which was subsequently rejected and in the said case, decree was prepared in favour of the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, it was submitted that once the matter was already adjudicated by a court of civil jurisdiction, the learned Executive Magistrate was not authorized to initiate a proceeding as alleged in the present petition and accordingly, it has been prayed to quash both 4 the orders i.e. order of Executive Magistrate and Circle Officer. 4. Shri Raju Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has referred to averments made in the counter affidavit particularly paragraph-4 of the petition wherein it has been stated that after rejection of Title Suit No.16 of 1992, the opposite party no.2 had filed an appeal vide F.A. No.270 of 1996 and same was pending before this Court. Learned counsel has also asserted that the opposite party no.2 was still in possession over the land in question. 5. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the decree, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition prepared in Title Suit No.16 of 1992. After going through the materials on record, the court is satisfied that in the present situation where the court of civil jurisdiction has already decided the 5 dispute and appeal is pending, the learned Executive Magistrate was not authorized to initiate proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and intervene with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by Executive Magistrate in Case No.132m of 1996 and Circle officer are hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 17.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.