IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.726 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 14.5.2010. Heard Sri Ashotosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Sri S.M.Shabbir Alam, learned counsel for Opposite Party no.2 and after having perused the copy of the complaint which has been filed with the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party no.2 today. The court has reservations that it could be proper to quash the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. specially in view of the fact that, as informed during the course of the present hearing, the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna City, has refused to grant an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the Opposite Party no.2 restraining to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. The situation which arises on account of refusal to grant an order in favour of the petitioner under order 39 rules 1 and 2 has given rise to a situation whether the parties may vie with each other for taking possession over the properties, then in that course, a serious law and order problem may - 2 - arise and it could be very difficult to take care of that situation if the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. could be quashed. Keeping that only in my view, I disallow the petition and the prayer made through it. However, I shall direct the learned Sub-Judge-I, Patnacity to expedite the hearing of Title Suit No.58 of 2007 which is pending before him in case the parties have appeared so that the disputed question of possession also is settled by him once and for all and expeditiously. Petition is dismissed with the above observations. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )