IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1755 of 2009 1.Ahmad Abdullah son of Abdullah A. Karim 2.Shamshul Mian@ Shamsul Haque son of late Md. Habib, both R/o Motipur P.s. Motipur,Dist. Muzaffarpur ………………Petitioners Versus 1.Suresh Tiwary son of late Pratap Tiwary R/o Jata P.S. Gaighat, Dist. Muzaffarpur at present Village Pachmukhi Purnea Bazar, Opposite Pet Rol Pump, P.S. Motipur, Dist. Muzaffarpur 2.The State of Bihar, …..Opposite Parties. -------------------- For the petitioners: Mr. S.M. Shabbir Alam, Advocate. For opposite party. : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No.1, Adv. 3 12.12.2011 Second party petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cri. Revision No. 114 of 2009 by which he has set aside the order dated 20th April 2009 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Case No. M 484 of 2009 under section 144 Cr.P.C. dropping the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. and the members of the Ist party was directed to go to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the declaration of title and possession. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the proceeding was dropped and the order dated 20.04.2009 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has lost its force after 60 days, the learned Sessions Judge had no occasion to set aside that order on 26.08.2009. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 20th April 2009 only on the ground that learned Magistrate has given a finding that the 2 petitioner was in possession of the land. It is settled principle of law that in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. the possession or title shall not be decided, title and possession can be decided only by the competent civil court. As there was certain finding regarding the possession of party in that impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)