LAWS(PAT)-2010-8-292

BASUDEO CHAUBEY SON OF LATE DEO RAJ CHAUBEY,; SHAMBHU CHAUBEY,; YOGENDRA CHAUBEY @ YOGENDRANATH CHAUBEY, BOTH SONS OF BASUDEO CHAUBEY AND AKHILESH CHAUBEY @ AKHILESH KUMAR CHAUBEY SON OF SHAMBHU CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND SATYADEO CHAUBEY SON OF LATE SHEO PRASAD CHAUBEY

Decided On August 23, 2010
Basudeo Chaubey Son Of Late Deo Raj Chaubey,; Shambhu Chaubey,; Yogendra Chaubey @ Yogendranath Chaubey, Both Sons Of Basudeo Chaubey And Akhilesh Chaubey @ Akhilesh Kumar Chaubey Son Of Shambhu Chaubey Appellant
V/S
State Of Bihar And Satyadeo Chaubey Son Of Late Sheo Prasad Chaubey Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.12.2000 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Cr. Revision No. 131 of 1999. By the said order, the revision petition was dismissed. Revision petition was preferred by petitioners against the order dated 31.7.1999 passed by Shri Rajiv Chauhan, Executive Magistrate, Buxar in Case No. 20(M) of 1996 declaring the possession of opposite party No. 2 over the land in dispute in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on the basis of petition filed by opposite party opposite party No. 2 dated 12.2.1996, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of land appertaining to Khata No. 22, New Khata No. 16, Plot No. 218 was initiated. The petitioners had claimed that opposite party No. 2 had transferred the land in question to the petitioners after accepting Rs. 50,000/-. However, the sale deed was not executed. In the meanwhile, dispute arose between the parties and on the basis of petition filed by opposite party No. 2, the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. Subsequently, by order dated 13.7.1999, Shri Rajiv Chauhand, Executive Magistrate, Buxar declared the possession over the land in question in favour of opposite party No. 2.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order dated 31.7.1999, the petitioners filed a revision petition, which was numbered as Cr. Revision No. 131 of 1999, which stood rejected on 2nd December, 2000.