IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37589 of 2007 PRAFULL CHANDRA KUMAR S/O LATE RAMRUP KUMAR, R/O MOHALLA-KAILASHPURI COLONY, ISAKCHAK, CLUBGANJ, P.S. MOJAHIDPUR, DIST. BHAGALPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIST. MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR, CUM-COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR 4. JAI PAL SINHA 5. RAJ KUMAR SINHA 6. KAJESH KUMAR SINHA ALL SONS OF LATE SHIVESHWAR PRASAD 7. SMT. BASANTI DEVI 8. RUPAK KUMAR SINHA 9. GOPAL KUMAR SINHA 10. BHOPAL KUMAR SINHA ALL SONS OF BHUVENESHWAR PRASAD 11. PRIMALA DEVI W/O JAIPAL SINHA ALL R/O CLUBGANJ, P.S. MOJAHIDPUR, DIST. BHAGALPUR. --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, APP For the O.P.Party no.5: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate. ----------- 06 06.08.2010 Heard The fact of the case reflects a sorry state of affairs. Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of a particular piece of land containing dwelling structure thereon. The co- sharer/heirs of the vendor of the petitioner obstruct their possession. It is the submission of the petitioner that a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) was decided in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 2003. It is the petitioner’s case again that in the year 2005 he was dislodged from the possession leading to filing of a criminal case, which according to him, is still pending. Petitioner filed an 2 application in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur for taking steps for violation of the order and file a complaint in terms of Section 188 of the Code. The same was considered and rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Criminal Revision no. 289 of 2005. Learned Revisional Court, by order dated 05.10.2005, refused to interfere with the order. It was observed thereunder that petitioner may move the District Administration for the relief. It is the case of the petitioner that he moved the District Magistrate, who by order dated 28.03.2006, referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police for needful action. Placing reliance on Annexure-6, it is submitted that the cost for police protection was deposited but no further action has been taken in the matter. It is, thus, the contention that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction, and ensure implementation of the order made under Section 145 of the Code and thereby restore his possession over the ‘Khapraposh’ house. In my view, such relief cannot be granted by this Court in the present proceeding. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)