IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1378 of 2008 KAILASH RAI, S/o Late Yaddan Rai, R/o Village-Salempur, P.S.- Mahnar, P.O.-Labapur, Narayan, District- Vaishali. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mostt. Janki Devi, W/o Late Mahesh Rai, R/o Village Salempur, P.O.-Labapur, Narayan, P.S.-Mahnar, District- Vaishali. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Chandra Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 03-08-2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and for the State. Petitioner, who was the first party to the proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the learned S.D.M. Mahnar in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2007 whereby his prayer for filing a complaint under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code has been considered and rejected. It is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 22.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2008 whereby the learned lower appellate court found no illegality in the order under challenge. While assailing the sustainability of the orders, learned counsel for the petitioner states that police submitted a report in which it was disclosed that the second party to the proceeding (O.P. 2 herein) had made certain construction over the disputed land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the findings of the learned Magistrate that there is no reliable evidence/material available against the second party (O.P. NO. 2 herein) in the matter is an error. 2 Learned Additional P.P. for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned orders and the materials placed on record. It appears from the order of the learned S.D.M, Mahnar that a ceiling case bearing Case No. 02/2006-07 filed at the instance of the second party (O.P. No. 2 herein) was decided in her favour. It further appears therefrom that the first party (petitioner herein) had already filed a revision application against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms. In the background of these facts, the learned S.D.M. found and held that there was no reliable evidence/material on record justifying the grant of prayer made by the applicant (first party). The appellate court on a consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties also found that the second party(O.P. No. 2 herein) has filed a case against the members of the first party with respect to the disputed land in the court of the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms vide Case No. 2/2006-07, which was decided in favour of members of the second party. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, the learned Appellate Court held as under: “Learned Magistrate has on the aforesaid ground come to the conclusion in the impugned order that there is no cogent proof to proceed against the members of II party u/s 188 I.P.C. and has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the members of 1st Party for lodging complaint u/s 188 I.P.C. against the members of II party in the court of C.J.M. for violation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3 14.2.2007 by the members of II party. This court accordingly finds that the learned Magistrate has given sufficient reason for its satisfaction for not proceeding in the case as desired by the members of 1st Party to launch prosecution u/s 188 I.P.C. against the members of II party.” This court does not find any illegality in the orders, which have been impugned in the present case. There is no merit in this application. The application is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)