IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.968 of 2007 KIRTI NAGAR SHAKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD.BELWARGANJ Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 26.11.2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has come to this court for quashing order dated 9.8.2007, annexure 4 passed by the Executive Magistrate cum In charge, Sub Divisional Magistrate,, Patna City in respect of Misc case no. 268 of 2007 under section 144 Cr.P.C. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.4 tried to raise a boundary wall over his (petitioner’s) land. He filed an application for restraining respondent no.4 from interfering with his possession giving rise to initiation of Misc case on 14.6.2007 under section 144 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that petitioner was first party, whereas respondent no.4 (Sri Raj Kumar Shah @ Raju Shah) was the second party in the proceeding. On 14.6.2007 respondentno.3 passed order restraining the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 from going over the land and to abstain from making any construction. Both parties were asked to file show cause. As no show cause was filed on behalf of respondent no.4, the leaned Magistrate on 2.8.2007 fixed 6.9.2008, the date for passing exparte order. On 9.8.2007 also neither did respondent no.4 appear nor filed any show cause, though the petitioner was present and heard. The matter was fixed for orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he subsequently came to learn that ante dated order has been passed on the same date on 9.8.2008 itself making the cause absolute against him and in favour of respondent no. 5 who was not party in the proceeding. It is reiterated that it - 2 - was respondent no.4 who was only party in the 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. It transpired subsequently from perusal of the record that respondent no.4 appeared before the magistrate after the case was fixed for orders along with respondent no.5. Respondent no. 4 filed a petition that he has not interest or claim on the land in question. On the other hand respondent no.5 appeared and filed a petition claiming his right on the land. A petition of respondent no.5 was treated as show cause and order was passed in his favour making the same absolute against the petitioner first party. The petitioner submits that the leaned magistrate in collusion with respondent nos 4 and 5 passed an order antedating the same. He submits that the aforesaid aspect will appear from the petition filed by respondent no.5 in the court. The stamp affixed on the petition said to be filed on 9.8.2007 does not find mention in the register kept in the office for this purpose After hearing the parties, this court is of the view that proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has already lost its force after expiry of 60 days, as such, findings of the Executive magistrate in respect of possession and title will have no bearing in future proceeding. The petitioner would be at liberty to make his complaint regarding the conduct of Executive Magistrate before the superior official. With the aforesaid observations this writ application is disposed of. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).