IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21346 of 2007 1. Ram Prit Rai S/O Late Dewki Rai 2. Rakatu Rai S/O Late Dewki Rai 3. Arbind Kumar S/O Ramprit Rai 4. Daya Nand Kumar S/O Ram Prit Rai 5. Harindra Rai S/O Nand Lal Rai 6. Hardeo Rai S/O Nand Lal Rai 7. Kamlesh Rai S/O Nand Lal Rai All R/O Village-Mahua Singh Rai, P.S. Mahua, Dist.Vaishali ------- 2nd Party-------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Raj Kumar Chaudhary S/O Sri Rajendra Chaudhary 3. Arun Kumar Chaudhary S/O Sri Rajendra Chaudhary 4. Antesh Chaudhary S/O Raj Kumar Chaudhary 5. Ajit Chaudhary S/O Raj Kumar Chaudhary 6. Amit Kumar Chaudhary S/O Raj Kumar Chaudhary 7. Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary S/O Arun Kumar Chaudhary 8. Rajesh Kumar S/O Arun Kumar Chaudhary All R/O Mahua Mukundpur, P.S. Mahua, Dist. Vaishali ------ Ist Party -------- Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay,A.P.P. For Opp.Party nos.2 to 8: Mr. Anirudh Kr.Sinha, Advocate ------------ O R D E R The second party to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.,being case No.274 of 2007 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 15.3.2007 passed therein by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahua, whereby he has converted the said proceeding into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It appears that a petition was filed by the 1st Party before the District Magistrate, Vaishali , who referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali for initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., against both the parties. The Mahua police - 2 - inquired into the matter and found that there was no apprehension of any breach of peace. Later, on 30.1.2007 incharge Rabindra Prasad informed the Sub Divisional Officer over telephone that petitioner no.1 herein, one of the members of second party, was constructing house upon the disputed land/ shop and by reason thereof there was great apprehension of breach of peace and recommended for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 or 144 Cr.P.C. to enable stoppage of construction work by petitioner no.1. The police on the order of the court came to the disputed lands and found that petitioner no.1 herein was going to construct shop on the disputed lands. The police , accordingly, stopped the construction work and on demand both the parties assured to show their respective documents in respect of the disputed lands in court. Further enquiry was made by the police and they recommended initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. , in respect of lands in dispute, which is as follows : Old Khata No. 1--Old Khesra No.1069 New Khata No.575 -- New Khesra No.3288 On the basis of the police reports dated 30.1.2007 and 31.1.2007, the instant proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of 5 dhurs of lands appertaining to Khesra No.1069/3288, Khata No.1/575 and notices were issued to both parties. In response to the notice, both parties appeared and filed their respective show cause and after hearing the parties the impugned order was passed. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners with - 3 - reference to Annexure -4, a copy of order dated 7.3.2000 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.1856 of 1999, that the said writ petition had been admitted by the said order by this Court wherein Opp.Party no.1 herein was impleaded as respondent no.6 and the court while admitting the writ petition had directed that during pendency of that application the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the house in question. The said writ petition was filed by one Ram Lakhan Chaudhary but the same Ram Lakhan Chaudhary who ,according to the petitioners, was the land owner of the lands in question, is not a party either in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. or in the instant application. In this view of the matter the order passed by this Court in the writ petition would have no effect or bearing in the instant proceeding or this application. I have gone through the impugned order and find no apparent illegality or impropriety in the said order. The requirement of Section 145 Cr.P.C. are satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case and the conversion has taken place within 60 days of the initiation of the proceeding. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application, which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 25th June,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.