HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U/A 227 No. 3512/2010 Jhumuk Lal Dhurv, S/o Dhanixam Aged about 55 yeaIS R/o Bajrang Para Saddhu, Vidhansabha Road Raipur, C.G. 2. Smt. SadhaJla Tiwan', ,W/o Dilip Tiwaxi, Agcd abeut 48 years Dilip Tiwari, S/o Sitaram Tiwari, Aged about 52 years 4. Sitaram Tiwaxi, S/o Shivdulare Tiwari, Aged about 78 years All petitioner No. 2 to 4 ale R/o Before Railway Crossing Pandri, Raipur, C.G. VERSUS , (:3 RESPONDENTS 1. Mohammad Sultan, S/ o Ramzan Aged Non —applicants / about 28 years 2. Mohammad Aslam, S/o Late Ahmad Hussam Aged about 35 years Shekh Gadar, S/ o Late Shekh Mastan Aged about 57 years. Mohammad Shahid, S/o Late Mohammad Samsuddin Aged about 26 years. Smt. Noorjahan @ Noon' W/o Late Ahmad Hussain Aged about 65 years 6. Na'zamum'sha W/o Late Samsuddin Aged about 55 years 7‘ Smt. Zehra Bi W/ o Late Ramzan Aged about 60 years All Respondents R/ o Afroj Bagh Moudhapara Raipur, C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, C.G. PETITIONERS: Applicants 1. 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :I-Ion’ble Mr. T.P.Shaxma, J.) Present - Shrl Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petmoners Shn Rakesh Jha, Dy Gr A for the State/respondent No 8 ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 16 [07/ 2010) Heard on admission. 2% Order impugned dated 25/2/2010 passed by 9m Additional Sessions Judge (F.TaC.) Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 173/09 aErming the order dated 16/09/09 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raipur in Cr. Case No. 2427/09 whereby learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raipur has dismissed the petition for taking suitable action under Section 122(1) (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for breach of peace. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits ‘that'initially on the ground of fencing and construction on the plot and thereby committing breach of peace by respondents No. 1 to 7. Proceeding under Section 107 read with m. Section 116(3) of the Code was initiated in which interim bond to maintain peace was executed by respondents No. 1 to 7 but after executing the bond again they are disturbing the possession by constricting room and making fencing of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have flled the petition for taking suitable action on the ground of breach of condition of the bond but learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has not taken any action and learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.):~;also aiiirmed the order. On the other hand learned counsel for the State/respondent NO. 8 opposed the petition. Order impugned and other copy of the petition perused. The documents filed on behalf of the petitioners reveals that respondents No. l to 7 were making fencing of the land by barbet Wire and tin shed. His subsequent petition reveals that position is one and same. On the aforesaid ground both the Courts below has dismissed the petition of the petitioners. Court below have not committed any illegality requiring any