IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.5087 OF 2010 1. LAKHANLAL MANDAL, SON OF LATE CHINTAMANI MANDAL 2. RATAN KUMAR MANDAL, SON OF LATE SIDHESHWAR MANDAL 3. RANJAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE SIDHESHWAR MANDAL 1-3 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LOHARI, POLICE STATION CHANAN, DISTRICT BANKA 4. PRADIP MANDAL, SON OF LATE LALGOVIND MANDAL 5. KAMDEO MANDAL, SON OF LATE JAIGOPAL MANDAL 6. PARMANAND MANDAL, SON OF JAI GOPAL MANDAL 7. YADU MANDAL @ JAIDEO MANDAL, SON OF JAI GOPAL MANDAL 4-7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RARHIYA, POLICE STATION MOHANPUR, DISTRICT DEOGHAR 8. OM PRAKASH MANDAL, SON OF LATE SUDARSHAN MANDAL 9. SANTOSH MANDAL, SON OF LATE SATSARAN MANDAL 10. PARSURAM MANDAL, SON OF SATYA SARAN MANDAL 11. ANIL KUMAR MANDAL @ ANIL MANDAL, SON OF SATYA SARAN MANDAL 12. CHANDANA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI LAKHANLAL MANDAL 13. KUNTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SURAJ MANDAL 14. BINDESHWARI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRAMANI MANDAL 15. SIYARAM MANDAL, SON OF SATYA SARAN MANDAL 16. GANESH MANDAL, SON OF LATE DOMAN MANDAL 8-16 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LOHARI, POLICE STATION CHANAN, DISTRICT BANKA ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHHOTI YADAV, SON OF RAMLAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE LOHARI, POLICE STATION CHANAN, DISTRICT BANKA …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 2 27/04/2010 Heard Counsel for the parties. The matter is pending since 2004. In the year 2004, 146(1) order was passed which was stayed till the Criminal Misc. No. 13430 of 2005 was finally dismissed on 23.02.2006. Again, the petitioners have come against the order dated 27.07.2009 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2007. By order dated 27.07.2009, 2 145 proceedings as well as the 146 (1) proceedings was revived. This Court did not interfere with the order dated 27.07.2009 in the order dated 06.11.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 30611 of 2009. In fact, there was a direction to the Magistrate to conclude the 145 proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. On 15.12.2009, the Magistrate has revived the proceedings under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no problem in reviving the proceedings under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Court ought to have recorded the reasons for holding that it is important to revive the proceedings and the urgency of the situation. Apart from that, the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka should take up the matter under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct both the parties to lead evidence as well as to file their exhibits so that the matter can be decided once and for all. Unless, there is an emergency, the Court should restrain from proceeding in the 146 (1) proceedings considering that the matter has been in abeyance since 2004, for almost six years. So, the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka will naturally need to consider whether there is any urgency, 3 which would lead the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka to believe that there is a real danger of breach of peace with respect to the land in question and thereafter pass an order. It is advisable that the parties should co- operate with the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka. In case, the party do not co-operate with the Sub Divisional Officer, Banka and do not appear on the date fixed by him, he should record it in the order so that this Court may be aware regarding the manner in which the parties are pursuing their case before him. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)