IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17128 of 2006 1. AKALESH MAHTO @ AKHLESH MAHTO @ AKHILESH MAHTO, SON OF SITAL MAHTO. 2. KAMLESH MAHTO, SON OF SITAL MAHTO. 3. SITAL MAHTO @ SHITAL MAHTO, SON OF JAHURI MAHTO. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHANHAT, POLICE STATION- HASPURA, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ………………………………………………………………...PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. VIJAY SINGH, SON OF CHANDRADEEP SINGH. 3. BABAN SINGH, SON OF CHANDRADEEP SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AKAUNI, POLICE STATION- DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. 4. RAM PUKAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE SADHU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHANHAT, POLICE STATION- HASPURA, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. 5. JANARDAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE NANHAK MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-TARAR, POLICE STATION- DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. 6. RAM BACHAN MAHTO, SON OF BIPAT MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HICHHAN BIGHA, POLICE STATION-DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, No.V, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 : M/s. Chitra Gupt Prasad and Naresh Prasad No.I, Advocates. ------------ O R D E R The members of the second party of a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. , being Case No.804 of 1992, T.R. No.23 of 2003, are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.2.2006 passed by Sri Kishori Ram, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Aurangabad, in Criminal Revision No.137 of 2002/8 of 2004, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 05.07.2003 - 2 - passed by Sri Om Prakash Mandal, learned Executive Magistrate, Daudnagar, in the said proceeding, declaring possession of the First Party over the lands in dispute. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application has been raised by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. herein inasmuch as the instant application was a second revision in the garb of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and a second revision was statutorily barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Ordinarily, the High Court should be loath in interfering in a second revision filed in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, if an order of the Sessions Court in a revision is manifestly illegal or improper or perverse or without jurisdiction or is palpably an abuse of the process of the court or an order requiring interference to secure the ends of justice, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the High Court. The instant application is one of such cases where the High Court would, in the facts and circumstances, seriously contemplate the desirability of interfering in view of the fact that Title Partition Suit No.250 of 1991/14 of 1996 in respect of the same lands as between the same parties has been decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction by a judgment and decree dated 28.7.1999 and 5.8.1999 respectively declaring the right and title of Matiya Devi, the mother of the petitioners nos.1 and 2 and the wife of petitioner no.3, as also Domini Devi, the mother of O.P.nos.2 and 3. Since the matter already stands concluded by a court of competent jurisdiction and the title of the petitioners stands affirmed, - 3 - the continuation of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in respect of the same lands and in between the same parties is manifestly an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned orders as well as the entire proceedings is hereby quashed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 19th of December, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.