IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23451 of 2010 LUCHO PATHAK & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 6.7.2010 This petition was placed under the heading “for orders on office notes” for taking a decision whether the defect no.14 pointed out by the Stamp Report that the petitioners should have filed a criminal revision petition instead of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to be upheld or rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested the Court to hear the petition and dispose it of on its merits. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. was initiated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bakhari, and by order dated 25.3.2010 he vacated the order in favour of the second party, i.e., the first party after recording a finding that the second party was in possession of the land. That particular order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bakhari was challenged by O.P. Shobha Devi before the learned Sessions Judge who passed the following order: “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of impugned order this court find meaning and substance in the submission made on behalf of the parties that possession can not be declared by the impugned order in the proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. which was also lost legal force for which it is set-aside in the result the criminal revision succeeds and is allows.” The above order indicates that the revisional court upheld the grievance of the petitioners before him, i.e., Shobha Devi and Shiv Shankar Poddar who are opposite parties before 2 this Court, that the Executive Magistrate did not have any power to declare possession of any of the parties to the disputed property in a proceeding under Section144 Cr. P.C. The petitioners were the second party before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bakhari and now they want to get the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate restored.. It is completely a frivolous petition filed against the settled principle of law. This Bench has over seven thousand petitions of the present nature listed before it today itself, which are only of years 2009 and 2010. Besides, there are two or three other Benches constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in which the Hon’ble Judges are busy with the hearing of such petitions. Petitions of the nature presently in hand are eating up most valuable time of the Court which could have been devoted by the Court to other contentious matters. Considering the frivolous nature of the petition and considering that it is devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999(5) SCC 209 Mary Angel & Ors. Vs. T.N. for filing the present frivolous petition. The cost shall be realized by the Sub- divisional Magistrate, Bakhari as fine as per the provision of the Cr. P.C.. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)