IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1381 of 2008 NILENDU KUMAR S/O- LATE JAGDISH PD. SINGH @ JAGDHATRI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE- NAYAGAON, (TOLA- SATKHUTTI), P.S.- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BUDHO MANDAL, @ INDRADEO MANDAL, S/O- SINGHESHWAR MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGAON (TOLA-KAJJALBAN), P.S.- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 3. REEV LOCHAN SHARMA @ RAJIV LOCHAN SHARMA @ SINGH @ CHHOTE SINGH S/O- SATYANARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGAON (TOLA- SATKHUTTI), DISTRICT- KHAGARIA 4. BIBHASH CHANDRA SINGH 5. HIMANSHU PRASAD SINGH @ HIMANSHU SINGH BOTH S/O- LATE UMESH PD. SINGH @ UMESH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYAGAON (TOLA-SATKHUTTI), P.S.- PARBATTA, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy „Raman, APP. ----------- 2 26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. First party to the proceeding U/S Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in Case no. 216M of 2008 is petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision no. 76 of 2008. A brief background of the case may be indicated first. On the basis of a report submitted by the police being Non-F.I.R. no. 03/2008, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was initiated in which petitioner was arrayed as first party whereas opposite parties herein were made second party. The apprehension of breach of piece was due to dispute over a piece 2 of land measuring an area of 11 Bighas 02 katha 10 dhurs. The parties were directed to submit show cause. Accordingly, causes were shown. Learned S.D.M, Khagaria by order dated 5.5.2008 vacated the same in favour of the first party (petitioner). Consequently the second party (O.Ps herein) preferred the aforesaid criminal revision which was disposed of in the following manner:- “ After going through the impugned order, the only illegality which I find is that the learned lower Court has observed that after going through the document, show cause, police report that the land belongs to first party and this part of observation by the learned lower Court appears to be beyond the scope of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in my view, will certainly cast a cloud over the interest of the petitioners/O.Ps. True it is that a finding arrived at in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. neither is a proof of title nor possession. However, the order should not be in a manner which should create a future controversy affecting or casting against the interest of the parties. As such, I am of the view that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and accordingly is done so. Consequent, thereupon, the revision petition is allowed.” Learned Senior counsel while assailing the sustainability of the order submits that the revisional court failed to consider that on the day when the said order was passed, the order passed by learned Magistrate was no longer in existence. According to him, the effect of the order made under Section 144 elapsed on expiry of a period of two months. It is next contended that learned Magistrate has only referred to the documents placed before it by the parties and has not observed anything with regard to title of the parties over the land. It is thus his 3 submission that the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate need no interference. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court finds from the operational part of the revisional order that learned revisional Court has taken due care to make observation(s) which relate to both the parties. It has held that any finding relating to title over the land shall not affect the parties to the proceeding in any manner. True it is that the word „possession‟ has been incorporated therein but considering the fact that the order passed by the learned Magistrate has already expired, this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )