IMPORTANT POINT
No time limit .can be fixed for disposal of proceedings u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. and as such proceedings under said section cannot be quashed no final order be set aside only on the ground of expiry of a particular period of time.

JUDGMENT

Nagendra Rai, J. - 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 arc 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 that 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 cannot be allowed to continue in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ani I Kumar and another v. Ram Parvesh Dubey and another1 and in the case of Ram Chandra Rai and others v. State of Bihar and another2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional court was not justified in law dropping the preceding on the ground that the proceeding remained pending for more than\10 years. According to him the delay in disposal of the proceeding could not be a ground for quashing the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The proceeding could be dropped or cancelled only when the Magistrate comes to a conclusion that the apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the disputed Mill does not exist or has existed. The decisions referred by the court below for dropping of the proceeding on the ground of lapse of time are no longer a good law after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. v. R.S. Nayak and another3.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, relied upon the judgments of this Court, reported in Kamleshwar Rai and another v. Keshav Rai and another4, Anil Kumar and another v. Ram Parvesh Dubey and another (supra) and Ram Chandra Rai and others v. The State of Bihar and others (supra) and submitted that as the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is of urgent nature the same should be disposed of with utmost expedition. If more