( 2025:JHHC:20033 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1635 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1635 of 2023 ------ 1. Basudeo Mahto @ Vasudeo Mahto, aged about 76 years; 2. Sukhdeo Mahto, aged about 62 years; 3. Ketar Mahto, aged about 58 years; 4. Bisheshwar Mahto, aged about 52 years; 5. Chhotan Mahto, aged about 45 years; All S/o Late Bandhan Mahto, R/o village Indra, P.O.-Churchu, P.S.-Charhi, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Razzaque Ansari, S/o Late Maniruddin Ansari, R/o village Indra, P.O.-Churchu, P.S.-Charhi, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though, a vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No.55 of 2022 whereby the learned Court below dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh in Case No.55 of 2002 and also the order dated 04.02.2022 passed ( 2025:JHHC:20033 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1635 of 2023 by the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh in Case No.55 of 2002 whereby petition filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners, has been decided in favor of the opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the impugned order dated 04.05.2022, the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh has mentioned the evidence put forth by the petitioner and the evidence put forth by the opposite party no.2, but without mentioning any reason as to why he is accepting the evidence put forth by the opposite party no.2 and why he is discarding the evidence put forth by the petitioner, who was the second party before the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh, has merely observed that on perusing the record, he was satisfied that the first party succeeded in proving the possession of the land in question without any discussion about the details of the evidence or documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamim Alam vs. Sajjid Hussain and Another in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl). No.2755 of 2004 dated 15.04.2005, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- Though the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate runs to three to four pages, no reasons are set out for reaching the conclusion that the property was in possession of Sajjid Hussain i.e. the respondent. The Learned Magistrate merely observed that on perusing the records, he was satisfied that Sajjid Hussain, the respondent was in actual possession of the property at the time of passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. Firstly, there is no discussion about the details of the report submitted nor the documents referred to in the said report. We are informed by the counsel for the appellant that the police has submitted a report while the matter was pending in the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent which supports the appellant's contention. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have given specific reasons with reference to the material placed on record rather than making a bald observation that the respondent was in actual possession of the property. Moreover, what is stated by the police officer in his report is not the final word. The Magistrate ought to ( 2025:JHHC:20033 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1635 of 2023 apply his mind independently. That apart, we find that the finding of actual possession of the respondent was with reference to the date of preliminary order which is not the relevant date that is contemplated by the provisions of Section 145 Cr. P.C. For these reasons we set aside the impugned order and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider the matter afresh with utmost expedition after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents. (Emphasis supplied) and submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the impugned order and directed S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh to consider the material afresh. Hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that learned Magistrate based on the evidence in the record has arrived at the finding of fact which should not be disturbed; hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that as a Magistrate exercising the power under Section 145(1) of the Cr.P.C. before arriving at the conclusion that one party or the other is in possession of the disputed land, must discuss the details of the evidence submitted by the parties and also to give reasoning why he has accepted the evidence of one party and discarded the evidence of the other party. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, both the parties are claiming possession over the disputed land, both the parties have adduced evidence, 8 witnesses from the side of the first party and 6 witnesses from the side of the second party, hence, under such circumstances, the Executive Magistrate was ( 2025:JHHC:20033 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1635 of 2023 expected to give reasoning, as to why he has accepted the evidence put forth by the first party and discarded the evidence put forth by the second party or must have mentioned why he is relying upon which evidence and on what basis, he arrived at the conclusion that the first party is in possession of the disputed land. But having not done so, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the S.D.M., Sadar, Hazaribagh has failed to mention as to on which date the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No.55 of 2022 failed to consider this aspect of the dispute and has erroneously come to the conclusion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh. In the discussions made above, such observation on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh is also not sustainable in law. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh in Case No.55 of 2002 and the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No.55 of 2022, being not sustainable in law, are quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of S.D.M., Sadar Hazaribagh to consider the matter afresh, after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties and to make discussion and to give reasoning as to why he has accepted the evidence of one party and discarded the evidence of the other party. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed with the aforesaid direction. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of July, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj