IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20581 of 1998 1. SHEO MUNI PANDEY 2. Rama Muni Pandey 3. Deo Muni Pandey 4. Vishwamitra Muni Pandey 5. Bashistha Muni Pandey All sons of Late Brij Bilash Pandey, resident of village- NIranpur, P.S Bihiya, District Bhojpur IInd Parties- Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur at Arrah 3. The Officer Incharge, Police Station- Biheya District Bhojpur 4. Dashrath Pandey son of Late Anirudh Pandey 5. Ajay Kumar Pandey son of Dashrath Pandey O.P. No.4 and 5 residents of village- Niranpur, P.S. Bihiya, Post- Kateyan, District- Bhojpur ...O.P. No.4 and 5- Ist Party...Opposite Parties ----------- 9 09-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who were second party in the proceeding under sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) under challenge. Inspite of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 who were the first party to the said proceeding. Also heard learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding under section 145 of the Code including the order dated 22-8-1998 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur in case No. 59/98 whereby he converted the proceeding u/s 144 of the Code into u/s 145 of the Code and also attached the lands in dispute u/s 146(1) of the Code and appointed the Officer Incharge as receiver of the said lands. Many points were raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforesaid prayer including the 2 contention that from the stand of both the parties, as noticed by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order, it is clear that parties are co-sharers and the lands are ancestral properties under joint possession of the parties. It has further been submitted that it is well settled in law that possession of one co-sharer is considered in the eye of law to be possession on behalf of all and for any dispute relating to joint property amongst co-sharers the proceeding under section 145 of the Code is not appropriate. The purpose of a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code is to find out as to which of the disputing parties is in actual possession. When the parties admit that they are co-sharers and the lands in question are joint properties, initiation of a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code was unwarranted in law. Hence, the prayer made in this application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that in case of emergency the Magistrate would be within his jurisdiction to take resort to appropriate proceeding to prevent breach of peace. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)