IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26292 of 2007 SRI JANARDAN PRASAD son of late Jaipal Mahto, resident of Mohalla Dadar Mandi, P. S. Alamganj, District Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Fhul Chand Vishwakarma son of late Saryu Mistry. 3. Lakhan Mistry son of Fhulchand Vishwakarma, Both residents of Mohalla Dadar Mandi, P. S. Alamganj, District Patna. .. Opp. parties ----------- 5. 16.02.2010 Heard Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner as with regard to violation of an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and its resultant complaint filed before the Court on 22.6.2004 did not find any merit before the Court who has passed the said order and court below by order dated 18.3.2006 had dismissed such proceeding under Section 188 I.P.C. by recording that there is no specific instance of violation of court order. Such finding was thereafter carried to the revisional court and the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patna had again gone into the whole gamut of the decision wherein it has been recorded as follows:- “ The learned Magistrate in impugned order has observed that since there is no specific instance of violation of court’s order hence the case is dropped. From perusal of misc. petition of applicant I also find that the applicant 2 has not mentioned the date of construction of Wall. In police report also, the specific date of construction has not been given. It may be mentioned that according to para-4 of misc. petition, the O.P.’s have constructed a wall whereas according to police report the O.P.’s has constructed a house. Accordingly I find that there is obvious contradiction on the point of nature of construction made by O.P.’s and no specific date of construction has been given. Accordingly I do not find any error or illegality in order of learned S.D.M., Patnacity. The court is not expected to file criminal complaint on the basis of vague and contradictory allegations, particularly when the matter was already decided by civil Court and appeal is pending.” In view of the aforesaid findings of the revisional court there would be no scope for taking a different view by this Court specially when the parties have already taken their dispute before the civil court which is the only competent court to decide all these questions relating to the claim over land/building/walls. That being so, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not find any error in the two impugned orders. In the result this application, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)