A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot adjudicate on title issues in proceedings under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., and such orders become infructuous over time.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP appearing for the State. However, in spite of valid service of notice and after filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 7, none appears on their behalf.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.08.2017 passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in Case No. 92 of 2017 and present Cr.M.P. was filed on 30.10.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the impugned judgment, there is some observation regarding right, title and interest of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not entitled to touch the question of title in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and the observation recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the impugned order itself has lost its effect by efflux of time as contained under Section 144 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and is not binding upon either of the parties for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, impugned order has become infructuous having no binding force upon either party. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the points raised on behalf of both parties.

6. It appears that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between the parties in respect of some landed property, but dispute is based upon sole transaction. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, after enquiry, observed that on earlier occasion also regarding the same land, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated, wherein no effective order was passed, rather parties were directed to take shelter of competent civil court to decide their right, title and interest. Petitioners are purchaser from one of the parties in above earlier proceeding.

7. It appears that there is general observation about the previous facts and nothing has been opined regarding right, title and interest of either party, calling for any interference in the impugned order.

8. In the above circumstances, in my considered view the impugned order has lost its rider as per the statutory provision contained under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and not binding upon either party.

9. Considering the same, there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition, which requires any interference. Hence, the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed.