JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. It appears that an application was filed by one Nageshwar Rai against one Hari Narayan Mahli, for initiation of a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr PC. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi by order dated 12.12.2000, directed the Executive Magistrate to hold enquiry and report. Subsequently, by order dated 10.04.2001, after receipt of the enquiry report of the Executive Magistrate and on consideration thereof, initiated a proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC with regard to the lands in question and directed to issue notice to the parties. Subsequently, on 18.04.2002 a petition was filed on behalf of the first party Nageshwar Rai that he has already sold the land in question to some other person and, therefore, he does not want to continue with the proceeding as first party and, therefore, his name be deleted from the proceeding.
3. On the same day one another application was filed by one Ashok Kumar wherein he had prayed to be added as a party intervener. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the first party Nageshwar Rai by deleting his name from the proceeding. Subsequently, by order dated 09.05.2002 the said Ashok Kumar was impleaded as first party being the subsequent purchaser of the land in question from the original first party Nageshwar Rai.
4. It appears that the present petitioner challenged the order dated 18.04.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate deleting the name of the first party Nageshwar Rai from the proceeding in revision being Cr. Revision No. 55/02 before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, by order dated 23.11.2002 held that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and since the original first party did not want to Continue as the first party because he has sold the land in dispute and, therefore, his name was rightly struck of from the proceeding by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed.
5. Now by filing the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.4.2001 whereby the proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC was initiated and the order dated 18,04.2002 deleting the name of the original first party from the proceeding as well as the Revisional order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the Revision application filed by the petitioner.
6. From perusal of the order impugned in this application passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as of the Judicial Commissioner in Revision, I find that there is-no illegality in those orders. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate and on the basis of the statement made by the first party had initiated the proceeding under Section 147, Cr PC. I find that the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in initiating the proceeding on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Magistrate. I also find that there is no error in the order of the learned Magistrate deleting the name of the original first party from the proceeding on the ground that now he had no interest in the proceeding since he had already sold the land in question in favour of Ashok Kumar, who was subsequently added as first party intervener. The learned Judicial Commissioner, also for the justified reasons dismissed the revisional application. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and thus is dismissed.