IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18524 of 2008 1. Ayodhya Mishra son of late Nagrarain Mishra. 2. Subodh Mishra @ Subodh Kumar Mishra. 3. Pramod Mishra @ Pramod Kumar Mishra. Both sons of Ayodhya Mishra. All are residents of Village-Rajpur Mithia, P.S.-Shikarpur, District-West Champaran. ........Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Deepu Kumar Mishra, son of Bala Chandra Mishra, resident of Village-Rajpur Mathia, P.S.-Shikarpur, District-West Champaran. .....Opposite Parties ----------- 03 15.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners have preferred this application for quashing the order dated 30.01.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2006 by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah West Champaran preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by learned S.D.M., Narkatiaganj in Case No. 314 of 2006 initiating proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. in which petitioners are the second party. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that regarding the same land on the basis of application of Bala Chandra Mishra, father of opposite party no. 2, the proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. is 2 pending regarding the land covering the disputed plot also in the Court of S.D.M., Narkatiaganj numbered as 1247 of 2005 and the petitioners had also challenged the order passed on 18.01.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 294 of 2006 in which the proceeding of 145 Cr.P.C. had been stayed. As such, initiating the second proceeding on the basis of the application of opposite party no. 2 Deepu Kumar Mishra under section 145 of Cr.P.C. is bad in law but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the same in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the S.D.M., Narkatiaganj in Case No. 314 of 2006 initiating the proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. Perused the order dated 30.01.2008 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2006 as preferred by the second party/petitioners against the order dated 10.03.2006 passed by the S.D.M., Narkatiaganj, initiating proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition preferred by the second party/petitioners on the ground that initiating proceeding under Section 145 of 3 Cr.P.C is preliminary order which has not decided the rights of the parties. The order dated 10.03.2006 passed in Case No. 314 of 2006 by the S.D.M., Narkatiaganj also disclosed that on the application of opposite party no. 2 Deepu Kumar Mishra, the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in which the petitioners are second party had directed to file their written statement. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2006 for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners about the pendency of the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding same land is concerned, the petitioner may raise this point in the Court of S.D.M., Narkatiaganj in the written statement or by way of petition under section 145 (5)Cr.P.C. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)