IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52552 of 2008 1. Bharath Chaudhary son of late Bhola Chaudhary. 2. Rajendra Chaudhary son of late Bharath Chaudhary. Both residents of Village-Khaira Tola, P.S.-Nautan, District-West Champaran. ...Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sheopujan Chaudhary son of late Chandrajeet Chaudhary, resident of Village-Khaira Tola, P.S.-Nautan, District-West Champaran. ........Opposite Parties For the Petitioners:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar No.1, Adv. For the State :- Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 03 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 21.08.2008, passed in Criminal Revision No. 301 of 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IV, West Champaran, Bettiah, dismissing the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.11.2004, passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Case No. 1593M of 2002, under section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code, directing the second party/petitioners to remove the encroachment from Plot No. 6078 of Khata No. 717. On perusal of the order dated 06.11.2004, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bettiah, it appears that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate on perusal of the police report, the statements of the witnesses and visiting on spot had arrived at conclusion that Plot No. 6078 is encroached by second party/petitioners and accordingly ordered to remove the 2 encroachment within a week. It appears from the order dated 21.08.2008, that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IV, West Champaran, Bettiah in Criminal Revision No. 301 of 2004 as preferred by the second party/petitioners against the order dated 06.11.2004, on perusal of the order dated 06.11.2004 and also the relevant paper arrived at conclusion that there is no illegality in the order dated 06.11.2004. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 21.08.2008, for interference in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)