MINADEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has challenged the order dated 9th June, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, in Cr. Revision No. 308/89, by which he has allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the first party and set aside the order dated 16/5/1989, passed by the Executive Magistrate in Case No. 498 (M)/160, Tr. No. 227/82, declaring the possession of the petitioner over the Mill situated at Mauza Purana Bhojpur.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of ; the present application are that on the basis of the police report, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was started by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhojpur, against opposite party No. 2, who was arrayed as first party and the petitioner and his mother who were arrayed as second party. Both parties appeared and filed their respective show cause and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties and perusal of the show cause, ordered for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.

(3.) The learned Executive Magistrate finally declared the possession of the second party-petitioner over the disputed Mill by order dated 4/2/1983. Against the said order the first party-opposite party filed a revision petition, being Cr. Revision No. 81/83, which was finally heard by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, who, by order dated 24/9/1987. set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remitted back the matter to him for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Executive Magistrate before whom the first party-opposite party did not appear inspite of the information to his counsel and the learned Magistrate by order dated 16/5/1989 again declared the possession of the second party-petitioner over the disputed Mill. Against the said order again the first party-opposite party went in revision before the Sessions Judge which was finally heard by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar, who by the impugned order dated 9th June, 1993, allowed the revision petition on the ground that the direction of the revisional court was not considered, the documents filed by the parties were not considered and there is no evidence on the record to show mat the apprehension of breach of peace is still continuing after lapse of more than 10 years of the initiation of the proceeding. According to him, since the proceeding is an old one, the same can not be allowed to continue in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar and another v. Ram Parvesh Dubey and anothers, (1987 BLJ 126) and in the case of Ram Chandra Rai and others v. State of Bihar and another, 1991 BBCJ 100.