High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2011
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CR.MISC. NO.35831 OF 2008
GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHARA RAMPUR SAH, POLICE STATION SADAR,
DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR
                               VERSUS
   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
   2. NEEL KAMAL TIWARY @ MANOJ TIWARI
   3. HANS RAJ TIWARI @ SAROJ TIWARI
   4. MUNNA TIWARI
   ALL SONS OF DEODUTT TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIGHARA
   RAMPUR SAH, POLICE STATION SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR
                                ********

2 18/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P.

appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

02.04.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 2007

by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court No. !V, Muzaffarpur has set aside the order

initiating proceedings under Section 188 of the Indian

Penal Code passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Muzaffarpur on 10.07.2007.

A proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was initiated and the Opposite

Parties appeared in the proceeding. During the pendency

of 144 proceeding, a prohibitory order was passed under

Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ultimately, the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure was dropped on the ground that it

was a residential house.

2

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during

the pendency of the 144 proceedings, the Opposite

Parties were violating the prohibitory orders by making

construction over the lands in question and as such the

order dismissing the claim of the petitioner ought to be

set aside by this Court.

This Court finds that since the premises had

been declared as a residential house, it would serve no

purpose to hold that there was a violation of prohibitory

orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Once, it is

held that it is a residential house, then further

construction on the residential house cannot amount to

really violating any terms of the prohibitory order.

I do not see any illegality in the order

impugned. This application is accordingly dismissed.

Anand                                           ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )