1 Cr. Revision No. 823 of 2003 2025:JHHC:31248 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr. Revision No. 823 of 2003 ---- 1.(i).Smt Mina Nath aged 71 years, wife of late Ajit Nath Sinha, resident of at North Market Road Upper Bazar, Near Shani Mandir, PO-GPO, PS Sadar District Ranchi 1(ii).Smt. Chandan Dayal aged about 66 year wife of Abhay Shankar Dayal resident of Dayal House, Tharpakhna, PO GPO, PS Sadar, District Ranchi 2.(i).Shila Sinha 2(ii).Sharad Kumar Sinha 2(iii).Prashant Kumar Sinha, Sl.No.(i) to (iii) resident of Sarvoday Nagar PO and PS Jail Hata, Daltonganj 2(iv).Shivani Kumar wife of Rounal Kumar wife resident of pioneer Path Tower C, Flat No.2202 Sec.61, Near Hongkong Bazaar, PO, PS and District Gurgaon, Haryana …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.(i)Shanta Devi widow of late Tulsi Ram 1(ii).Nirmal Ram son of late Tulsi Ram 1(iii).Sunil Ram Son of late Tulsi Ram 1(iv).Shiv Shankar Ram son of late Tulsi Ram Sl.(i) to (iv) are residents of Village Katma, PO Katma, PS Pandu, District Palamau 2(i)Raju Ram 2(ii)Lalan Ram 2(iii)Ramawatar Ram 2(iv)Baban Ram All sons of late Dasrath Ram, All are residents of Village and PO Katmu, PS Pandu, District Palamau 3.State of Jharkhand …… ….. .... Opp.Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Arup Kr Dey, Advocate For the Opp.party :- Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate ---- 13/09.10.2025 This matter has been straight way filed before this Court without moving 2 Cr. Revision No. 823 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge. 2. This matter has been entertained by the coordinate Bench of this Court and the matter has been admitted for hearing and in view of that considering the long pendency of the present criminal revision petition before this Court, it has been entertained. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the Opposite party. 4. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.07.2003 passed by Executive Magistrate (Sadar), Daltonganj, in Misc. Case No.65 of 1999 in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C whereby the possession of the Opposite party has been declared in relation to the land in dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in Partition suit being Partition Suit No.2 of 1936 the land was allotted to the petitioners and in spite of that in absence of any cogent evidence, the possession of the O.P.no.2 has been declared by the learned Magistrate. He submits that the parameters of deciding the possession has not been considered in its right direction. He then submits that in view of that the petitioners may kindly be allowed to file the suit and finding of the learned Magistrate may not come and prejudice the case in deciding of the said suit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the matter is arising out of section 145 Cr.PC and prayer made by the petitioners appears to be genuine one. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that learned court has appreciated the facts and evidences of the case and thereafter has passed the said order. 8. It appears that the finding on title and possession has been recorded in the order of the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C 3 Cr. Revision No. 823 of 2003 and that would prejudice the petitioner in all juridical proceedings. In light of the above and keeping in mind the mandate contained in Section 145(4) Cr.PC, it is apparent that the determination by the learned Magistrate is without reference to merit of the claims of any of the parties and in view of that the finding of the learned Magistrate in the said order could not be treated to be a binding determination on merits either on the question of possession or in the question of title. The dispute is required to be adjudicated by a competent court of Civil jurisdiction. 9. In view of that, the petitioners are put at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance before the competent Civil Court. 10. This criminal revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 09th Oct.,2025 SI/,