IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46412 of 2007 1. SUDARSHAN YADAV S/O KEDAR YADAV 2. SINGHASHAN YADAV S/O KEDAR YADAV 3. PRABHU YADAV 4. PRABEJ YADAV, BOTH SONS OF JHILU YADAV 5. KEDAR YADAV @ KEDAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM LAGAN YADAV 6. SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF BADRI BIND (ALL R/O VILL- PAHARIYA P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DIST. KAIMUR) ----- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABUA 2. VINAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH 3. AMIT KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VIJAY KUMAR SINGH 4. BIPIN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VIJOY KUMAR SINGH (ALL R/O VILL- MURI, P.S. CHAINPUR, DIST. KAIMUR AT BHABUA) 5. RAM SURAT DUSADH, SON OF LATE GHURU DUSADH 6. BACHANI DEVI, WIFE OF RAM JANAM BIND 7. MANORMA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM JIWAN BIND, ALL R/O VILL.PAHARIYA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DIST. KAIMUR AT BHABUA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. 05. 19.03.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners, who are second party in the Court below, have filed the present application for quashing the revisional order dated 23.08.2007, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. IV, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Criminal Revision no. 19 of 2007/ 31 of 2007. First party (opposite parties herein) filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C., and a report from the local police officers seems to have been called for. After enquiry, a report was submitted which recommended initiation of 145 proceeding as there was a serious 2 apprehension of breach of peace relating to a particular piece of land between the parties. Satisfied with the said report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by a proceeding dated 18.12.2006, initiated the proceedings and notices were issued. It is admitted position that pursuant thereto both the party have filed their respective show causes, and the matter is presently pending consideration before the said Court. The petitioners (second party) preferred a revision application questioning the order dated 18.12.2006 passed in Misc. case no. 08/06, whereby the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated. One of the grounds taken in the said application was that there is already a Title suit no. 149 of 2003 pending between the parties. The learned revisional Court in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order considered the said submissions and has recorded a finding that although revisionist claimed that there is a suit pending but no document was placed on record to substantiate his contention that on the date of hearing of the application the said suit was alive and pending for appropriate adjudication. Having recorded the said finding the learned revisional court has found and held that the order initiating 145 proceeding satisfies the requirement of law and as such no interference was called for. Accordingly, the revision application was rejected. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners herein have subsequently filed Title suit no. 349 of 2008 impleading the opposite parties herein as defendant(s) in the case. From his own showing the said suit was filed after the initiation and continuation of the proceedings under Section 145 3 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have already unsuccessfully invoked the revisional jurisdiction vested in the Sessions Court. The present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not strictly be available to the petitioners. The order in question cannot be said to be wholly perverse or without jurisdiction. This Court, considering the narrow jurisdiction of the provision invoked by the petitioners, is not inclined to interfere with the order. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)