IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14964 of 2008 Umashankar Prasad, son of Nand Kumar Rai, resident of Village-Lalpokhar Chak, Jagdishpur, P.S. Sadar, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. …………………………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Maya Devi, wife of Kailash Sharma. Resident of Village + P.O. Angikala, Vikashnagar, P.S. Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 3. Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar, resident of village + P.O. Bahkolpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali. …………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 6. 20.10.2011. Heard Mr. Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Awadheseh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 8.11.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Miscellaneous Petition Case No.P/439/04 /M1/400/05, in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the petition filed by the 3rd party- petitioner to drop the proceeding on the ground of pendency of the title suit has been rejected. 2 From the impugned order dated 8.11.2007, it appears that in course of the proceeding in between Smt. Maya Devi and Sunita Devi under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to drop the aforesaid proceeding on the ground that a civil suit between the parties is pending covering the land in dispute and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not permissible in law. On hearing the parties and also the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali Hajipur, arrived at the conclusion that to maintain peace and to remove the obstruction from the public road, the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary and the pendency of civil suit, filed on behalf of the intervenor-petitoner, is not a valid ground to drop the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order for interference with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)