IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53991 of 2007 GANANAND MISHRA, Son of Late Shiv Nandan Mishra, resident of Village- Narhar, P.S. Bhairav Asthan, District- Madhubani at present resident of Station Road, Jhanjharpur, P.S. R.S. Shivir, Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani.........................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chandrakala Devi, Wife of Late Ram DAs, resident of Village- Pathrahi, P.S. R.S. Shivir Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. ...................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 03. 19.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in M.R.Case No. 185 of 2007 instituted under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on police report vide R.S. Shivir Non-formal F.I.R. No. 05 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, has converted 144 proceeding into proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notice to both the parties. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance to the order of the authorities, measurement of Plot Nos. 4850 and 4851 was done by the Anchal Amin, Lakhnaur, in presence of both the parties and their respective Amins and they accepted the measurement and then pillars were put on the respective lands. In that regard, a report was submitted by the Anchal Amin, Lakhnaur, to the Circle Officer,Lakhnour in Measurement Record No. 02 of 2007-08 on 18.07.2007 which is Annexure-6 to the present application, which reflects that there is no dispute with regard to plot no. 4850 but contrary to the same, the Circle Officer, Lakhnaur, vide his Letter No. 473 dated 19.07.2007, requested the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, for initiation of 145 proceeding on Plot Nos. 4850 and 4851 of Mouza- Behat, Thana No. 238 which is absolutely contrary to the report of the Anchal Amin, Lakhnaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the show cause filed by the opposite party No. 2, who is the first 3 party in the court below in 144 proceeding vide M.R. Case No. 185 of 2007 in paragraph no.2 has accepted that there is no dispute with regard to Plot no. 4850 and the police has wrongly raised a dispute with regard to the same which is as follows: “ That the actually there is no any dispute on S.P. No. 4850 by mistake the police has involved the S.P. No. 4850 in the aforesaid proceeding.” It is further submitted that on this tainted report of the Circle Officer, Lakhnaur, vide his letter dated 19.07.2007, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in the district of Madhubani, converted 144 Cr. P. C. proceeding into 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding with respect to plot no. 4850 measuring an area of 3 Khatha 18 dhoors. The petitioner is aggrieved with the said issuance of the notice to him and the opposite party no. 2 as well as to one stranger Ashok Kumar Tibrewal, who is the intervener, whose intervention was not accepted which is apparent from the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the learned Sub- 4 Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and materials available on record, it appears that recommendation of Circle Officer, Lakhnaur, is not based on any material fact and it is contrary to the report of the Anchal Amin, Lakhnaur, who made measurement and put the pillars with consent of both the parties and no one has any objection to that which is apparent from Annexure-6, moreover, the first party who is a lady, at the behest of whom, 144 Cr. P.C.proceeding was initiated has admitted in her show cause in paragraph no.2 that there is no dispute with regard to plot no. 4850, hence, it appears that conversion of 144 Cr. P.C. proceeding into 145 Cr.P.C. is not based on the materials on record, however, I am not interfering with the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in M.R. Case No. 185 of 2007, but direct the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, to consider whole facts of the case, report of Anchal Amin contained in Annexure-6 5 particularly the show cause of opposite party no.2 and then pass final order within a period of two months. With this observation, this quashing application is disposed of. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)