Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Heard Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.196/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Hazaribagh and the order dated 08.09.2008 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barhi in Case No.10/2000, T.R.No.43/2008 is also
under challenge.
The 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated pursuant to the complaint made by the second party who is opposite party in this petition alleging therein that
the land pertaining to Khata No.52, Plot No.90, measuring area 1.49 acres situated at Village Kanti P.S.Chauparan was settled in the year 1934 in the
name of his mother Degni Devi by the Ex-landlord Prasadi Singh by Hukumnama which was in her continuous possession alongwith payment of rent
to the Ex-landlord and after vesting of Zamindari to the State of Bihar till the year 1991. It is further stated that subsequently it was transferred to
Mangla Devi wife of Bandhan Yadav who is the wife of the brother of the petitioner on 18.09.1991 and presently the petitioner is the wife of his
brother is in possession. Opposite Parties/1st party case- that the original 1st party i.e. Barho Sao has stated that he has purchased the land in the
name of his wife Kanti Devi from Gokhulanand Singh vide sale deed dated 29.11.1999 and while he went over the land for agricultural purposes the
Opposite party /2nd party restrained.
Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in both the orders, the learned courts have not provided any
reason of coming to the conclusion on the possession of the opposite parties in this case. By way of referring to sub section 4 of section 145 Cr.P.C.,
Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel submits that the reasoned order is required to be passed which is lacking in the case in hand and he further submits
that this petition fit to be allowed.
Per contra Mrs. Lily Sahay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that both the courts have examined the witnesses and
looking to the documents and after analysis of the witnesses evidence have passed the orders.
The Court has perused the revisional order wherein at the finding the revisional court has considered the L.C.R and has also recorded that the first
party filed the petition before the court of Executive Magistrate, Barhi by way of claiming the Khata Noa.52, Plot No.90, area 1.49 acres it has been
noted on which the second party who is the petitioner. Thus, the proceeding started under section 144 Cr.P.C. The learned Executive Magistrate has
looked into the show cause and after looking to the submission of both the sides being satisfied has converted the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C
and again issued notice. Both the parties appeared and submitted their written statement. First party submitted that the proceeding land purchased
from Gokhulanand Singh s/o Anirudh Singh in the name of Shanti Devi vide sale deed no.12379 dated 29th November, 1999 and after purchasing the
proceeding land, the first party in possession peacefully, when cultivating by the first party have been objected by second party. They restrained to
cultivate the proceeding land and also abuse them and ready to quarrel. Thus, section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was started and on this initiation the first
party produced seven witnesses before the Magistrate. The contention of the witnesses have been discussed by the learned Magistrate as well as the
revisional court. The sufficient reasons has been assigned by both the courts on possession. If the petitioner is not satisfied, it is open to the petitioner
to go to the competent court of civil jurisdiction for deciding the possession. There are sufficient reasons assigned. It is well settled that if in the
revisional order no injustice is made to anybody, in the garb of petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, the second revision is not maintainable.
Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.587 of 2015 is dismissed.
