IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.663 of 2005 SULTAN SAQUIB Versus SULTAN RASID WITH CR. REV. No.754 of 2005 SULTAN SAQUIB Versus SULTAN RASID & ANR ----------- 8. 24.6.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the Opposite Party No.1. 2. Petitioners in both the revision applications are the First Party in the proceeding bearing No. 97(M)/2004 initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was later converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Vide orders dated 8.5.2004 subject matter whereof was even attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C. but before decision could be arrived at in terms of Sub-Section(4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. the proceedings were closed observing that the dispute is in between the uncle and the nephew and relates to the land which they claim to have got through a private partition. During the pendency of the proceeding even request was made by the petitioner to lodge complaint for the offence under Section 188 I.P.C as according to him there was violation of the restraint order passed in the proceeding. To confirm the violation of the restraint order report was also called for from the Circle Officer which is dated 10.5.2004 but the same was not relied upon as from the order dated 19.5.2005 passed in connection with the complaint for lodging the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. it appears that the local inspection was made by the Circle Officer in - 2 - absence of the parties concerned, as such, was rightly not relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura. 3. Once a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.has been initiated which is later converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the subject matter attached then it is incumbent upon the court below to have resolved the dispute about the possession of the subject matter of the proceeding in terms of Sub-Section(4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. but the court below by the impugned orders dated 12.5.2005 and 19.5.2005 has neither resolved the dispute about the possession in between the parties nor has decided about the violation of restraint order, accordingly I set aside the aforesaid two orders and remit back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura for adjudication of the dispute including the allegation about the violation of the restraint order and the parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura on 7.7.2008 whereafter he should record evidence and conclude the proceeding as early as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties and in the event, parties do not co-operate in the proceeding then it shall be open for the learned Magistrate to proceed ex parte. 4. Both the revision applications are, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)