The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of explaining inordinate delay in filing a revision petition and the sparing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. This application has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge -IVth, Jehanabad in Cr. Rev. No. 16 of 2001 by which the criminal revision application was dismissed as time barred.

3. The prosecution story is/are as follows :-

(i) there is/was a piece of land on Plot No. 233, Khata No. 50 at Purani Sarai, Jehanabad which originally belonged to Tetri Telin, she was issueless who dedicated the rooms to the ‘idol’ of the ‘Radhe Krishna Jee’ by registered deed dated 20.06.1942 with a provision to utilize the income from the property for the ‘ Rajbhog’ and ‘Sringar’ of the ‘deity’ installed in the rooms;

(ii) initially, Pandit Jadunandan Sharma, the great grand-father of Opposite Party No. 2 was looking after the same. However, with the passage of time, his ancestor became dishonest, shifted the ‘deity’ to some other place and after the death of Jadunandan Sharma, his son, Krishnadeo Sharma started managing the affairs. Krishnadeo Sharma is the father of Opposite Party No. 2 and grand-father of Opposite Party No. 3;

(iii) as the local people were not satisfied with their functioning and were disturbed by the misuse of the income of the property; they constituted a committee for construction of new temple in place of the old one which was also approved by the Bihar State Religious Board of Trust (henceforth for short ‘the Trust’);

(iv) the allegation is that the Opposite Party No. 2, a lawyer removed the ‘idol’ from the property, the same was informed to the police, it was followed by submission of a report by the police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jehanabad for taking steps under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’);

(v) meanwhile, local people filed complaint against them for offences registered under Sections 379, 411 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The case of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 is/are that the land originally belong to Tetri Telin which was dedicated by registered deed on 02.06.1942 to ‘deity’ Radha Krishna Jee. Further after the death of Tetri Telin, Pandit Jadunandan Sharma let out the property on rent to Sheolakhan Sah and after his death, his son has given vacant possession to Opposite Party No. 2 in 1989.

5. During the revisional survey, it was recorded in the name of the father of O.P. 2, Krishnadeo Sharma and there was no ‘idol’ of ‘Shri Radha Krishna Jee’ in the property under proceeding. However on 10.10.1989, they found a new ‘idol’ of ‘Shri Radha Krishna Jee’ installed over the property and as stated above, the police submitted a report for initiation of proceedings under Section 144 of ‘the Cr.P.C’.

6. Mr. S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jehanabad on the basis of the said report initiated proceeding under Section 144 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. restraining both sides from going over the property further directing them to file their respective show cause. Later, the proceeding was converted under Section 145 of ‘the Cr.P.C’.

7. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jehanabad heard the argument on 01.09.1999 and reserved the order. He was later transferred and as such, the petitioners were under the belief that no order has been passed in the matter.

8. However, on 24.01.2001, the petitioners came to know that by putting antedate, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jehanabad had passed order on 01.09.1999 itself. Thereafter, an application was preferred for procuring certified copy of the order on 25.01.2001 which was made available on 24.02.2001 and thereafter, revision petition filed on 27.02.2001 along with limitation petition for condoning the delay.

9. In the meantime, the father of petitioner no. 1, name