IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40897 of 2005 AMAR SINHA @ AMAR KUMAR SINHA @ AMAR KUMAR SINGH, son of Late Kamleshwari Sinha, resident of village – Lakshmi Nagar, P.S. and District – Khagaria. ----------- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dilip Kumar Singh, Son of Rajniti Singh 3. Nageshwar Singh, Son of Biranchi Singh 4. Chandra Bhushan Singh, Son of Saroop Singh 5. Adhiklal Singh, Son of Thakur Singh 6. Dabboo Kumar, Son of Medni Singh 7. Birendra Poddar, Son of Lateshwar Poddar 8. Sukhadeo Sharma, Son of Mishri Sharma 9. Kishori Singh, Son of Kuldip Singh 10. Fusit Singh, Son of Dhrub Singh 11. Gajo Sharma, Son of Ramautar Sharma 12. Mahendra Singh, Son of Brahmadeo Singh 13. Bilash Tanti, Son of Ram Swaroop Tanti 14. Naresh Kumar, Son of Anandi Tanti 15. Pradeep Tanti, Son of Baijanath Tanti 16. Ramautar Singh, Son of Baldeo Singh 17. Baleshwar Singh, Son of Naseeb Singh 18. Ramjee Singh, Son of Timmi Singh 19. Anil Kumar, Son of Baldeo Singh 20. Saheb Kumar, Son of Ganesh Tanti 21. Uday Singh, Son of Deyali Singh 22. md. Atmul, Son of md. Ishaque 23. Mr. Israil, Son of Ataul 24. pannalal Mistry, Son of Mishri Mistry 25. Upendra Poddar, Son of Lateshwar Poddar 26. Saryug Singh, Son of kishori Singh 27. Parma Nand Singh, Son of uchit Singh 28. Kamaleshwari Singh, Son of Harnath Singh 29. Dasharath Prasad Sao, Son of Rambahadur Sao 30. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Son of Gopal Singh 31. Sukhadeo Poddar, Son of Uchit Poddar 32. Panchoo Sao, Son of Etawari Sao 33. md. Rajjak, Son of Allauddin 34. Bhoomi Singh, Son of Late Hazari Singh 35. Bhujangi Sharma, Son of late Mishru Sharma 36. Yogendra singh, Son of Late Saryug Singh 37. Radhey Tanti, Son of Late Botal Tanti 38. Ratilal Singh, Son of Doman Singh (deceased) 39. Sachchidananda Singh, Son of Dasharath Singh 40. Arjun Sharma, Son of Sri Uchit Sharma 41. Arjun Malakar, Son of Biro Malakar 42. Tuntun Malakar, Son of Biro Malakar 43. Satish Poddar, Son of Sukal Poddar 44. Janardan Singh, Son of Naseeb Singh 45. Ganga Prasad Singh, Son of Anoop Singh - 2 - 46. Subhuklal Singh, Son of Ramdeo Singh 47. Geeta Poddar, Son of Uchit Poddar 48. Satish Singh, Son of Late Hiyalal Singh 49. Paramand Malakar, Son of Not Known 50. Sukhadeo Sharma, Son of T.R. Sharma 51. Manoj Kumar, Son of Sri Anandi Singh 52. Deep Narayan Singh, Son of Late Phoolo Singh 53. Gorelal Singh, Son of Sundar Singh (deceased) 54. Kamaleshwari Singh, Son of Sri Giriji Singh 55. Vakeel Singh, Son of Girjee Singh 56. Dasharath Singh, Son of late Kesi Singh 57. Janardan Singh, Son of Chaturi Singh 58. Rajniti Singh, Son of parameshwar Singh (deceased) 59. Uday Singh, Son of Sri Diyali Singh 60. Chhattis Singh, Son of Lelhoo Singh 61. Ashok Singh, Son of Shanichar Singh (deceased) 62. Jagadish Singh, Son of Late Ramswarath Singh 63. Nageena Singh, Son of Sri Jagadish singh 64. Jay Prakash Singh, Son of Sri Jagadish Singh 65. Kamo Singh, Son of Nago Singh 66. Upendra Singh, Son of Sri Asharfi Singh All respondent no. 2 to 66 are residents of village – Mohaddipur, P.S. – Pasrahi, District – Khagaria. ----------- Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For Opp. Parties : Dr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, APP. ------- 16. 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for rest of the opposite parties and with their consent it is being disposed of at admission stage itself. 2. Initially this application was preferred as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 88/2004 subsequently converted into proceeding under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of order dated 02.12.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 105 of 2001 setting aside order dated 28.05.2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gugari, passed in Case No. 468M/1994, and - 3 - remanding the case before the court below for a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 3. Undisputedly there was 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding between the parties with respect to 8 Bigha 17 Khatas and 19 Dhoors lands of village Mohaddipur near Pasraha Railway Station, District – Khagaria and the same was subsequently converted into the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. 4. The parties have already approached this court twice earlier invoking different jurisdiction assailing different orders in the proceedings, mentioning the details is not at all required. 5. During the course of argument, it was submitted that in different orders, number of the case pending before the court below (S.D.M.,Gogari) appears mentioned wrongly due to some clerical or typing error, somewhere it is mentioned as 408M/94 and at some places 468M/94, whereas in the order of the Revisional Court under challenge, it is mentioned as 68M/94. However, members of the Bar are in agreement that correct number of the proceeding before the court below is 468M/94. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing order of remand passed by learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria, in Cr. Rev. No. 105/2001 tried to led emphasis that before the court below parties were heard at length, but it was wrongly submitted by the counsel representing the petitioner there i.e. - 4 - opposite parties here, that they had not been heard but at the same time when the learned counsel was confronted with portion of the impugned order, wherein it has been mentioned that though earlier parties were heard, matter was posted for orders without fixing any date but suddenly three petitions filed earlier appears disposed of by the court below with a specific direction to communicate the such order to the counsels representing the parties, but at no point of time, such communication could be made, in spite of this, the court below passed final order observing one of the side is not interested. This was the reason behind passing an order of remand. Learned counsel for the petitioner in spite of trying his level best has no reply. He further tried to seek adjournment to produce copy of order dated 24.04.2001 when parties were heard and matter was posted for orders, just to show that the date for order must have been fixed, but at the fag end of hearing at this stage, I do not find any justification to adjourn the matter specially in view of the undisputed fact that three petitions pending disposal since before were disposed of by the Magistrate, who himself was of the opinion that the learned counsels representing the parties must be communicated such development so that they may be heard again before passing final order, but the order was undisputedly not complied with. Thus, even if the Magistrate had fixed the date for orders, it is not going to affect the valid reasons for passing order of - 5 - remand by learned Sessions Judge. 7. In view of the above findings, I find no merit in this application, but at the same time considering the chequered history of proceeding before the court below under section 145 Cr.P.C. wherein only factum of possession of either of the side is to be decided and as submitted parties have already adduced evidence, nothing more is required to be done except hearing and fresh order. I must direct the court below i.e. S.D.M. Gogari, to dispose of the proceeding within three months of receipt of copy of this order. The parties, taking into consideration ensuing assembly election are directed to appear before the court below positively on 29th November 2010 i.e. Monday, and court below may proceed hearing of the parties even on day to day basis, if needed. Further it is directed that if either of the side fails to appear before the court below on any date fixed or participate in the proceeding, their plea of non-hearing if raised shall not be entertained rather it will be taken as their deliberate avoidance to cause undue delay in disposal of the case. 8. With the above observation and direction, this application stands disposed. Meanwhile, office is directed to ensure transmission of copy of this order to the court below immediately. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)