IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4875 of 2009 Md. Iliyas, son of Late Mazidur Rahman, resident of Satkodaria Tola Budheli, PS K. Nagar (Maranga), district Purnia – petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Matiur Rahman, son of Late Saidur Rahman, village Satkodaria Tola Budheli, PS K Nagar (Maranga), district Purnia – opp. parties. 2 8.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 29.7.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Purnia in Misc. Case No. 361(M)/2008 on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not recorded that there was reason to believe that a dispute existed between the parties. This order was challenged in revision which has been disposed of by order, dated 18.12.2008. On perusal of the aforesaid two orders I find that notices were issued to both the parties who filed their show cause and on perusal of the show cause the court observed as follows : “GAMBHIR BHUMI VIVAD HAI KYON KI VIVAD KA MOOL KARAN VIVADIT BHUMI KE DAKHAL KABZA KO LE KAR HAI.” The court has, thus, converted the 144 proceeding into one under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land is Khatiyani land which indicates that the land has a house and a Sehan in it. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 does not have a single document in his favour to show prima facie that he has any title or possession over the land. Before initiating the proceeding under 2 section 145 of the Cr.P.C. it is required that the Magistrate should be satisfied on the basis of a police report or upon other information that the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace over the land in question. In this case admittedly the Magistrate has not called for the report from the police officer to satisfy himself as to whether bona fide dispute exists on the land in question. It also appears that by conversion of 144 proceeding into one under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner now cannot make any further addition or construction in the house which already exists on the plot. Since , the dispute has been raised on behalf of opposite party no.2, the Magistrate has rightly considered this fact that the matter cannot be decided in a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. However, the court ought to have called for a police report before proceeding in the matter and satisfy himself that the dispute is “bona fide”. In the circumstances I do not think that it would be proper to quash 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding but before the Magistrate proceeds any further in the matter, it would be proper for him to call for a police report and thereafter reconsider the continuance of the proceeding under section 145(5) of the Cr.P.C. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)