IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5118 of 2008 PARSAN PRASAD SINGH …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BUDHAN BHAGAT 3. GOBARDHAN BHAGAT …OPPOSITE PARTIES With Cr.Misc. No.7067 of 2008 PARSAN PRASAD SINGH …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BUDHAN BHAGAT 3. GOBARDHAN BHAGAT …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Raghav Prasad & :Mr. Maheshwar Prasad (in both the cases) For o.p.nos.2 and 3 :Mr.A.K.Sharma (in both the cases) For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP (in both the cases) ----------- 04. 20.09.2010 Both the matters arises out of one proceeding initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) being Tr.No. 96/2002(Prashan Prasad Singh vs. Budhan Bhagat). 1st party to the said proceeding is the petitioner in both the applications, whereas the 2nd party to the proceeding are o.p.nos. 2 and 3 in these two applications. Both the matters, therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. Cr.Misc. No.7067 of 2008 has been filed by the 1st party challenging the order dated 13.12.2007, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Gopalganj in Cr.Rev. 2 No.22/2002, whereby order dated 21.12.2001 passed by learned Magistrate in Trial No.96/2002 was interfered with and set aside and the matter was remitted back to the court for a fresh hearing and disposal. In the second application (Cr. Misc. No.5118 of 2008), final order dated 16.01.2002 was challenged by the second party before the learned revisional court (Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C-II, Gopalganj) in Cr.Rev. No.265/2002/27/2004. Learned revisional court by impugned order dated 13th December, 2007, allowed the aforesaid revision application. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the revision application, final order was passed in 145 Cr. P.C proceeding without affording any opportunity of hearing to the opposite party(2nd party) to lead evidence. Learned revisional court by order impugned dated 13.12.2007, passed in Cr.Rev. No.265/2002 disposed of the matter with the following direction as would appear from paragraph 5 of the order: “5. mijksDr foospuk rFkk ckn dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij xaHkhjrkiwoZ fopkjksijkar eSa bl urhts ij igqaprk gw¡ fd dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k fnukad 16-1-02 fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS rnuqlkj iqujh{k.k vkosnu Lohd`r djrs gq, dk;Zikyd n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k fnukad 16-1-02 vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fuEu U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd iqujh{k.k vkosnudrkZ dks Hkh fyf[kr o;ku nkf[ky djus ,oa viuk lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k tk;s rfkk fof/k lEer fl)karksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vkns'k ikfjr djsaAÞ It is admitted at the Bar that during the pendency of these proceedings the 2nd party (opposite party herein) filed Title Suit No.376/02 seeking diverse relief(s) including 3 quashment of the order dated 16.01.2002, whereby 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding was disposed of finally without allowing the 2nd party(opposite party herein) to adduce evidence as they had failed to file their written statement within time allowed by the court. Both the parties agree that in view of the fact that a suit has already been filed by one of the parties to the present proceedings, namely, the 2nd party(opposite party herein), the present applications may be disposed of by setting aside those portions of the direction made in paragraph 5 of the revisional order dated 13th December, 2007, whereby learned revisional court after setting aside the order under revision directed the learned Executive Magistrate to proceed afresh with 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding. I have considered the aforesaid stand taken by both parties before me. This Court is satisfied that both the applications may be disposed of in the following manner: The order dated 13th December,2007, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- Gpolganj in Cr. Rev. No.22/02 is set aside. Paragraph 5 which contains the operative portion of the order dated 13th December, 2007, passed in Cr. Rev. No.265/02 is modified to the effect that in terms of the direction contained in later part of the said paragraph, there shall be no revival of 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding between the parties. In other words, learned Executive Magistrate is now not required to proceed with the aforesaid proceeding in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties. The dispute between the parties shall now abide by Title 4 Suit No.376/02 already filed by 2nd party(opposite party herein) to the proceeding. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )