The court disposed of a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of orders initiating proceedings under Section 145 CrPC after a nine-year delay. It directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice with land details, set a deadline for compliance, and dismissed the stay application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ No.497 of 2004 =========================================================== 1. Gopal Sharan Singh @ Gopal Singh (Dead), Son of Late Ram Nath Singh @ Akjhu Singh. (i) Smt. Bachchi Devi, Widow of Late Gopal Sharan Singh @ Gopal Singh. (ii) Rajeev Kumar. (iii) Niraj Kumar. Both Sons of Late Gopal Sharan Singh @ Gopal Singh. Resident of Village- Barhiya, P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai. 2. Ashok Singh @ Dhebar. 3. Laloo Singh. Both Sons of Late Rameshwar Singh. 4. Prem Nath Sharma @ Prem Singh. 5. Braj Nath Sharma @ Krishna Mohan Singh @ Nunu. Both Sons of Late Ramjee Singh. 6. Most. Anup Devi @ Aruna Devi, Widow of Late Kaushal Kishore Singh. 7. Ramanand Singh, Son of Late Hardeo Singh. 8. Ram Balak Singh (Dead), Son of Late Surju Pd. Singh. (i) Smt. Kaushalaya Devi, Widow of Late Ram Balak Singh. (ii) Prem Kumar Singh (Dead), Son of Late Ram Balak Singh. (a) Smt. Bharti Devi, Widow of Late Prem Kumar Singh. (b) Pranav Kumar. (c) Pranya Sagar. Both Sons of Late Prem Kumar Singh. All Resident of Village- Barhiya, P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai. (iii) Prabhat Kamal Pawan, Sons of Late Ram Balak Singh. Resident of Village- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai. 9. Ashok Singh, Son of Late Bhado Singh. 10. Bipin Singh, Son of Late Balmiki Singh. 11. Bashishth Singh (Dead), Son of Late Shyam Sundar Singh. (i) Smt. Madhumala Singh, Widow of Late Bashishth Singh. (ii) Gautam Kumar, Son of Late Bashishth Singh (iii) Jyoti Shandilya, Daughter of Late Bashishth Singh. All Resident of Village- Barahiya, P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.497 of 2004 dt.22-08-2013 2/4
All residents of Village- Barhiya, Tola- Ram Charan, P.S.- Barhiya, DistrictLakhisarai.
….. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar.
….. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate
Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Advocate
Mr. Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. O.P. Maharaj, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh (G.A.-7)
Mr. Dilip Kumar (A.C. to G.A.-7)
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-08-2013
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of the orders dated 08.01.2004 and 11.03.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Case No. 3M of 2004, initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordering for disposal of the cost and deposit of usufruct in Nazarat etc.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.497 of 2004 dt.22-08-2013 3/4
in Case No. 3M of 2004 (under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). And the Sessions Judge, Munger vide order dated 16.10.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2004 confirming the same.
3. Admittedly, on application dated 08th November, 2003 notices to show-cause were issued against the petitioners, who appeared on the date fixed i.e. 22nd November, 2003, objected lack of details of land in the notice, accepting the objection fresh notice was ordered to be issued, despite as it appears, revised notices were not served upon, but taking into consideration non-filing of show-cause etc. the impugned orders were passed.
4. The matter went up before Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2004, but there also it was observed that the notices had been served, whereas, from the perusal of the record of the lower court it appears not true.
5. Taking into consideration, the wastage of nine odds years at very initial stage of the proceeding the learned counsel for the opposite parties (1st party before the court below) is directed to serve the copy of petition seeking initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure containing all details of the lands in dispute.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.497 of 2004 dt.22-08-2013 4/4
respondents here is ready and willing to serve the copy upon the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners here, but ultimately, on hesitation of learned counsel representing the petitioners, he (respondents counsel) will now serve the copy upon the counsel representing the petitioners in the court below or, in case, he also hesitates, it will be served upon the parties through due process of the court as well as through registered post.
7. It is made clear that the opposite parties shall complete all the needful in order to comply the above order before the court below on or before 16th September, 2013 and he will also ensure by depositing due fee etc. for transmission of the record to the court below along with the copy of this order through Special Messenger.
The Registry is directed to complete the needful immediately.
8. It is further also made clear that within two weeks after compliance of the above order i.e. service of notice, the petitioners shall file their show-cause or objection, if any, and the court below shall after due consideration of the objection raised, if any, at the earliest pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
9. With the above observation, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J)
Praveen-II/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC should be initiated after a lapse of nine years due to procedural defects in the notice.
Whether the lower authorities can be directed to issue a fresh notice with details of the disputed land.
Gopal Sharan Singh @ Gopal Singh
Smt. Bachchi Devi
Rajeev Kumar
Niraj Kumar
The State of Bihar
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai
Akhilesh Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
