IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42582 of 2007 1. ISMAIL MIAN @ ISMAIL, SON OF FUL MOHAMMAD 2. UNEUS MIAN 3. PAN MOHAMMAD, SONS OF ISMAIL MIAN @ ISMAIL ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR, P.S. BANIYAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. SURENDRA RAUT SON OF SHEO KUMAR RAUT 2. SHEO KUMAR RAUT, SON OF RAM DARAP RAUT BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR, P.S. BANIYAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. 3. RAM DARASH RAUT SON OF DHANESHWAR RAUT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARPUR CHATAWA, P.S. BANIYAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 27.9.2010. Heard Shri Umesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 31.3.2007 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chapra in Cr. Revision No.370 of 2003. By the said order, revision preferred by opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 against the order dated 4.8.2003 passed in Tr. No.136 of 2003, whereby a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had ended in favour of the petitioners was allowed and the matter was 2 remitted back to the concerned court. The revision petition i.e. Cr. Revision No.370 of 2003 was allowed on 21.3.2007. About six months after the order of revisional court, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was filed on 13.9.2007 and on 6.1.2009, the petition was rejected due to non prosecution. However, subsequently, on 24.4.2009, restoration petition was filed, which was allowed on 29.4.2009 vide Cr. Misc. No.16124 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, had passed a detailed order and there was no reason for the revisional court to interfere with the same. However, the revision court has set aside the order dated 4.8.2003. It was submitted that the petitioner had actually purchased the land in question and thereafter, the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 started to create disturbance. It has been submitted that the petitioners are in peaceful possession over the land and the learned Executive Magistrate had also passed the order declaring possession of the petitioners over the land and the opposite 3 N.H./ parties were restrained from creating any disturbance. I have perused the materials available on record particularly the impugned order i.e. order dated 21.3.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No.370 of 2003 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- F.T.C.-I, Saran, Chapra. By the said order, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has remitted back the matter to the concerned Magistrate for passing an order in accordance with law. I do not find any defect in the impugned order and as such the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the impugned order stands rejected. However, it is made clear that rejection of the present petition may not prejudice either of the parties and the learned Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced with this order. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)