(2025:JHHC:36777) 1 Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.874 of 2021 ------ Dinkar Shahi aged about 35 years, son of Shyam Sundar Shahi, resident of Village- Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. – Sarwan, District- Deoghar. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bhuneshwar Mahto son of Late Nago Mahto. 3. Nepal Mahto son of Late Anant Lal Mahto. 4. Rabindra Mahto son of Late Badri Mahto. All resident of Village – Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.- Sarwan, District- Deoghar … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar in Cr. Revision No.135 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar has allowed the Criminal Revision; which has been filed challenging the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Cr. Misc. Case No.541 of 2017; by which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (2025:JHHC:36777) 2 Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2021 Deoghar has initiated a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the land of Mouza Nawadih Thana No.109, Jamabandi No.09, Plot No.89, Area 33.50 sq. ft within P.S.- Sarwan, District- Deoghar. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the land of Plot No.89 is a private Raiyati land which stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 in the record of rights. By claiming that the petitioner was using the vacant plot No.89 for a considerable period of time for entry and exit to his house, the petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar vide order dated 03.06.2017 in Cr. Misc. Case No.541 of 2017 directed the parties to maintain status quo and called for the police report. The said order dated 22.05.2018 was assailed in Criminal Revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar considered that in the police report dated 18.06.2017 filed before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, it has been mentioned that the ownership of the land is with the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 herein who were the petitioners before the Revisional Court and the petitioner herein who was the opposite party No.2 before the Revisional Court, was made over the disputed land on the basis of exchange of some other land of him with the ancestors of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 herein. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar further considered that plot bearing No.89 belonging to opposite party Nos.2 to 4 herein and plot bearing No.90 belonging to the petitioner herein, were (2025:JHHC:36777) 3 Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2021 adjoining the main road and have direct entrance access to the road and ignoring this aspect, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar has initiated the proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar set aside the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to pandemic, the parties were not appearing in the court, still the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar has set aside the order dated 22.05.2018 impugned before it. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 submit that the condition precedent for exercise of the power under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. is that there must exist a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace, regarding any alleged right of user of any land and such right must be claimed as an easement or otherwise. It is next submitted that admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the plot No.89 whereas the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are the owners of the plot No.90. Both plots are adjoining the main road so, there is no necessity for the occupant of either of the plot to pass through the other’s plot to approach the main road. Thus, the petitioner has no right on the land of plot No.89 and in the absence of any right of the petitioner in respect of the plot No.89, there was no rhyme or reason for the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar to initiate a proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the same having (2025:JHHC:36777) 4 Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2021 rightly been set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the petitioner claims that he has exchanged the portion of plot No.89 which was used as a path by him, with his other lands, with the ancestor of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 but before the police officer he could not produce any document in support of his claim by telling the police officer that he will produce the same in the court. Now, on being asked by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also unable to produce any such document in this Court showing exchange of the land concerned. 7. Under such circumstances, as the undisputed fact remains that both the plot Nos.89 and 90 are adjoining the main road, hence, the occupants of either of plot No.89 or plot No.90 do not have to go to the other’s plot for the purpose of approaching the main road because main road is adjoining both the plot Nos.89 and 90. 8. Under such circumstances, as the petitioner could not make out any case of right of use of the land of plot No.89, so there was no occasion for the Subdivisional Magistrate to initiate the proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar has not committed any illegality by setting aside the impugned order. (2025:JHHC:36777) 5 Cr. M.P. No.874 of 2021 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 11/12/2025