IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.20742 of 1998 1. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH , son of Late Sakaldip Singh 2. Anirudh Singh 3. Dhupendra Singh sons of Shyam Bihari Singh 4. Upendra Singh Residents of Shivaji Path, Yarpur P.S. Gardanibagh District Patna ........Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Balram Singh, son of Late Sakaldip Singh Resident of Shivaji Path, Yarpur, P.S. Gardanibagh, District Patna ..... .... Opposite Parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate ------------ 6 09-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of a proceeding u/s 107 of the Cr. P.C for which notice was issued by order dated 28-5-1998 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna in case No. 226 (M)/1998. Initially O.P. No.2 filed a petition before the authorities for initiation of the aforesaid proceeding and it appears that learned Magistrate decided to issue notice as to why they should not execute a bond u/s 107 of the Cr. P.C against both the parties on account of land dispute leading to several cases under sections 144 and 145 of the Cr. P.C. Although this application has stood dismissed against O.P. No.2 due to default in taking steps for notice, it is proceeding against the State only on the plea that order of the Magistrate has to be defended by the State only. It has been submitted that a 2 perusal of the order contained in annexure-1 would show that learned Magistrate has only enumerated the earlier dispute between the parties and has not given details of any overt act to which the petitioners could have submitted show cause. It has further been submitted that a proceeding u/s 107 of the Cr. P.C is only to take care of the emergent situation and now about 12 years have passed since this matter was initiated and has remained pending on account of stay order of this court. On a perusal of the noticed contained in annexure-1, it is found that the aforesaid submission on behalf of the petitioners is correct and the notice lacks necessary details and specific materials to which the petitioners were required to reply. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the proceeding in question is quashed. This order shall not stand in the way of the learned Magistrate if a fresh proceeding is required in view of existing materials. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)