The proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. allows an Executive Magistrate to ascertain possession over disputed land to prevent breach of peace without resolving title issues.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Rev.No. 519 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the order dated 02.12.1993 passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. declaring the possession of Second Party (Opposite Parties) over the land in question by the Executive Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif in the Case No. 804(M.P.)/1993 has been affirmed by dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioners (first party).

2. Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who were first party before the court of Executive Magistrate in the Case No. 804 (M.P.)/1993 submits that the learned Executive Magistrate in his order dated 02.12.1993 not only declared the possession but also declared the title of the second party, who are here Opposite Parties in the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. which is wholly without jurisdiction and in this regard, the findings given by the learned Executive Magistrate in his order dated 02.12.1993, may be perused. The petitioners (first party) initially preferred Cr. Rev. No. 519 of 1993 on 16.12.1993 making all three second parties as opposite party and the revisional court set aside the order dated 02.12.1993 in that revision of which order’s copy has been filed as Annexure-3 holding therein that the order dated 02.12.1993 was wholly without jurisdiction. Though the original order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was in the favour of all the three second parties and the revisional court’s order dated 04.08.2009 was against all of them but out of them, only two second parties (Opposite Parties) namely, Ran Bijay Prasad and Raj Kumar Prasad had challenged that revisional court’s order before this Court without making the third Opposite party namely, Laxmi Kant Prasad as a party in Criminal Revision No. 459 of 2010 due to which it can be deemed that the order dated 04.08.2009 of the revisional court attained finality so far as in favour of the first parties as against the O.P. No. 4, namely, Laxmi Kant Prasad Singh and the Cr. Rev. No. 459 of 2010 was not maintainable due to non-joinder of the necessary party (O.P. No.4), however, that revision was dismissed on 20.01.2013 for want of prosecution but the same was restored vide order dated 25.10.2013 but without any notice or information to the petitioners who were opposite parties in that revision petition and thereafter, the matter was remanded back on technical ground for afresh decision mainly considering that the documents filed by the first parties (petitioners) did not contain exhibit numbers and in this regard, the order dated 25.10.2013 filed as Annexure-5 may be perused and further, when the matter was again heard by the revisional court, the case record of Executive Magistrate’s court was not available before the revisional court as all the exhibit documents as well as File-A and File-B of the said case record had been eaten by termite (deemak) and the same were in torn condition and in this regard, Annexure-7, a letter, sent to the revisional court by the concerned court may be perused which shows that the revisional court passed the impugned order in the absence of the evidences adduced by both the sides before the court of Executive Magistrate. He further submits that the original order dated 02.12.1993 clearly goes to show that the documents filed by the first party/petitioners were not properly considered and exhibited which shows the prejudicial approach of the said court. He further submits that from the first paragraph of the original order dated 02.12.1993, it is clearly evident that in