IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69366 of 2018

Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- Bhojpur

======================================================

1.

Bhagmati Devi, Wife of Parmeshwar Choudhary,

2.

Parmeshwar Choudhary, Son of Late Lakhan Choudhary,

3.

Raghu Nath Choudhary, Son of Late Munni Choudhary,

All are resident of Village- Kayam Nagar, P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar

2.

The State of Bihar through its District Magistrate-cum-District Collector,

Bhojpur at Arrah

3.

The Circle Officer, Koilwar, Bhojpur. ………….1st set

4.

Binoy Kumar Singh, Son of Sheo Jee Singh, Resident of Village- Matiyara,

P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur. …….2nd set

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Md. Ataul Haque

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-12-2019

Heard parties.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed for quashing the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by

learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Bhojpur at Arrah in

Case No.42/2011 by which in a proceeding under Section 145

Cr.P.C., he has directed Circle Officer, Koilwar to remove the

structure constructed during 145 proceeding.

3. A proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was

initiated on the report of local police dated 26.02.2011 that there

is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69366 of 2018 dt.12-12-2019

2/4

respect to possession over the disputed land. Both the parties

claim their title and possession through sale deed executed by

the descendants of recorded tenant in their favour.

4. Previously also, petitions were filed by the opposite

parties before SDM for initiation of proceeding under Section

144 Cr.P.C. because they apprehended their dispossession but

said petitions were not entertained on the ground that dispute

was of civil nature, however, subsequently, on the police report,

a proceeding was initiated under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and by

order dated 29.04.2011, same was converted into proceeding

under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

5. It further appears that since there was dispute with

respect to possession of the disputed land, the learned SDM by

order dated 12.06.2014 passed an order of attachment of the

disputed land against which petitioners filed criminal

miscellaneous no.32053/2015 which was disposed of by order

dated 01.10.2015 with a direction to learned SDM, Arrah to call

for a fresh report from Circle Officer with respect to status of

the disputed land. In compliance of the order passed by this

Hon’ble Court, SDM, Sadar, Ara directed the Circle Officer,

Koilwar by order dated 19.02.2016 to submit a fresh report with

respect to existence of house over the disputed land. It further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69366 of 2018 dt.12-12-2019

3/4

appears from the record that an order was passed by SDM to

remove the structure over the disputed land which was

constructed during pendency of 145 proceeding and order of

attachment and same was removed by Circle Officer.

6. The proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is an

urgent provision and cannot be allowed to continue for

indefinite period as the authority gets jurisdiction only if there

is apprehension of breach of peace and there is serious dispute

with respect to possession over disputed land which can lead to

breach of peace. Receiver can be appointed by S.D.M. during

pendency of 145 proceeding if he is unable to form opinion on

the basis of material available on record and police report as to

which party is in actual physical possession over the disputed

land and which continues till decision of the case or any further

order passed