JUDGMENT

Rajani Dubey, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 16.03.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.12/2017 by Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, arising out of order passed by SDM, Bemetara, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.270/2003 passed on 31.03.2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.07.2003, Ishtgasha No.02/2003 was filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. by the Police Station, Dadhi, District Bemetara, before Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there is disputed between applicants Rekhalal and others & one Dharmendra Kumar with regard to possession of the land total Kh.No.8, total rakba 7.54 hectare situated at villge Sendari and there was likelihood of fight which may cause disturbance in peace and order in society. On 26.07.2003, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed preliminary order granting opportunity of hearing to the parties, and after hearing both the parties, final order was passed on 02.11.2012. Against this order, Dharmendra Kumarrespondent No.1 herein, filed Revision Petition No.60/2012 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 06.09.2014, allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter, applicant Rekhalal, against the order dated 06.09.2014, preferred Criminal Revision No.860/2014 before this High Court and this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2016, directed the Magistrate to proceed further to decide the entire matter afresh after recording only the evidence of Rekhalal whose evidence on the earlier occasion was not duly signed by the Magistrate. It was also directed to proceed further to decide the matter finally keeping in view the directives given by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 06.09.2014.

3. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by reading over the statement of Rekhalal, which was verified by him, and after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties, passed final order on 31.03.2017. Against the order dated 31.03.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, respondent No.1-Dharmendra Kumar preferred Criminal Revision No.12/2017 before Sessions Judge, Bemetara, which was allowed by setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that, respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed land on the date of earlier order and two months prior to making of the application, is perverse. He further submits that the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is well reasoned order based on material and statements of the parties. The scope of interference in revision with the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is a restricted one and normally the revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law. He also submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order, ought to have appreciated that the question of title to the disputed field is not relevant for the purpose of deciding possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and only thing which is required to be seen, whether which party was in possession of the disputed field two months prior to the making of application. It has been also submitted that the statements of the villagers recording during the proceeding and the spot inspection report submitted by the revenue authority have been completely ignored by the Sessions Judge. The dispute with respect to the possession is a subject matter before the civil Court, the proceedings ought not to have initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C.. He also submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly held that the applicants are in possession of the property in question and only on the technicalities the learned Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the order