IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53030 of 2008 Krishna Nandan Singh, son of Late Nathuni Singh, resident of Village/P.O. Sapagarha, P.S. Chiralya, District-East Champaran. ……………………………………………..Ist Party-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ganpat Sahni, son of Mogal Sahni. 3. Dasai Sahni. 4. Jagarnath Sahni. Both sons of Brahmdeo Sahni. 5. Bhagwan Sahni. 6. Bharat Sahni. 7. Ramji Sahni. 8. Shatrughan Sahni. All are sons of Mathur Sahni. All are resident of Village/P.O. Khartari Tola Lalbegia, P.S. Shiraiya, District-East Champaran. ……………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. --------------------------------- 3. 29.8.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of the order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Motihari, in Criminal Revision No.157 of 1995/09 of 2006, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court-I has dismissed the Criminal Revision affirming the order dated 25.5.2995 passed by the 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikarahna, East Champaran, Motihari, in Case No.663M of 1984, whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate has declared the possession of 2nd party under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the documents as filed on behalf of the first party-petitioner should have been considered in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same has not been considered at the time of passing the order dated 25.5.1995 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and this aspect was also not considered by the revisional court dismissing the criminal revision of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the land in dispute is of R.S. Plot No.1959 measuring an area of 15 kathas 10 dhoors corresponding to old Plots No.1022 and 1023 regarding which the sale deed was executed by the ancestor of the second party in favour of the ancestor of the first party on 6.11.1999 but by mistake the plot no.1033 was mentioned in the sale deed in place of plot no.1023 while the boundary is same. This fact was raised in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same has not been considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also by the 3 Revisional Court in the impugned order. From the impugned order dated 5.8.2008, it appears that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Motihari, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the proceeding of Section 145 Cr.P.C. arrived at the conclusion that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the order in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on discussing the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and the order is just and proper and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.5.1995 and has dismissed the criminal revision. The order dated 25.5.1995 passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. goes to show that the evidence of the petitioner has been detailed from pages 5 to 11 and the documents as filed have been detailed at page 11 and thereafter the evidence and the documents of the second party. Evidence of Ist party/petitioner is discussed in detail at pages 21-22. As such, I find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents as filed on his behalf have not been considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. As far as the submission of the learned counsel 4 for the first party-petitioner about the non consideration of the fact that the plot no.1033 has wrongly been mentioned in the sale deed as plot no.1023 while the boundary is same by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the revisional court is concerned, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Sub Divisional Magistrate is only required to ascertain the possession of the party on the basis of the evidence adduced in proceeding. He is not required to look into the documents for holding title. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)