[2026:JHHC:21003 ] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2793 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2793 of 2018 ------ 1. George Allen Bachman @ G.A. Bechman aged about 55 years, son of Late Clement Bachman @ C. Bechman. 2. Daniel Bachman @ D. Bachman aged about 50 years, Late Clement Bachman @ C. Bechman Both resident of Hirna, P.O. + P.S. and District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Anil Kumar Marandi son of Denial Marandi, resident of Principal’s house, Saint Marry Mission, Saint Marry Church, Deoghar, P.O. + P.S. and District- Deoghar. … Opposite Parties. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dipankar Roy, Advocate. Mr. Shray Mishra, 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 a prayer to quash the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 2017 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the Criminal Revision and set aside the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with criminal case No. 06. 0f 2016. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the second party to the said criminal case no. 06 of 2016 while Rev- Lemual Murmu was the first party of the said case. The first party claims to be the ‘Priest’ of [2026:JHHC:21003 ] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2793 of 2018 the Saint Marry Church, Deoghar while the petitioner-second party claims himself to be the ‘Priest’ of the said Church and he was looking after the said church since the beginning. In the said proceeding, the parties submitted their documents as well as their written statement. The first party did not adduce any oral evidence and remained absent continuously. The second party examined two witnesses; the first party also did not produce any document in support of his contention. On the basis of the perusal of the record, it appeared to the Executive Magistrate, Deoghar that the Title Eviction Suit no. 23 of 1994 is pending in respect of the disputed land between the Diocese of Patna represented by the first party and Saloni Hembram and others. On the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Circle Officer, Deoghar that the second party is in possession of the disputed land and until the competent court passes any order, till then the first party shall not bear any obstruction and by thus observing disposed of the said proceeding of Criminal Case under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The opposite party no.2 who was not the party to the court proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. filed a Criminal Revision no. 43 of 2017 contending therein that after retirement of the first party from the service of ‘Priest’, the opposite party no.2 herein who was the petitioner in criminal revision being his successor has filed the criminal revision. So, the delay may be condoned and the order passed by the Executive Magistrate being arbitrary be set aside. Before the revisional court, the petitioner herein challenged the locus standi of opposite party no.2 herein and also claimed that the first party to the proceeding L. Murmu is residing in Deoghar and contesting different proceedings [2026:JHHC:21003 ] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2793 of 2018 related to the property and the petitioner has no other interest except to save the property of the Church, hence, it is submitted that the criminal revision being filed after inordinate delay, be dismissed. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar was of the view that since the petition was by the first party filed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the second party endorses no objection to the same, hence, the learned Executive Magistrate ought not have passed order on the merit of the case and simply dropped the proceeding and by thus observing, set aside the order dated 06.09.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 06 of 2016. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar was misdirected and passed the order on the facts which bear no support from the record. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the first party to the criminal case no. 06 of 2016 did not take any interest or did not adduce any evidence whatsoever and remained absent in most of the cases, though he filed a petition under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has mentioned about pendency of Title Eviction Suit no. 23 of 1994 in respect of the disputed land, but between the parties who were other than the parties to this proceeding, there is no material in the record and in the absence of the same the learned Executive Magistrate, Deoghar in the order dated 16.09.2016 passed in Cr. Case No. 06 of 2016 has referred to the said petition only for the purpose to show that it is the admitted case of the first party about the pendency of the said title suit, but he has passed the order on merits. So, in absence of any evidence whatsoever put forth by the first party rather on the evidence put forth by the second [2026:JHHC:21003 ] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2793 of 2018 party including two documents, the learned Executive Magistrate has rightly declared the possession of the petitioner therein, hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Deoghar so the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar ought not have set aside the same. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand oppose the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 8. 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 undisputed facts remains that the first party of criminal case no. 06 of 2016 did not take any steps by adducing any evidence though he remained absent in most of the dates which was fixed. Though there is a reference in the order passed by the Executive Magistrate dated 06.09.2016 that a petition under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was filed, but the same has been mentioned for the purpose that the same indicated pendency of Title Eviction Suit no. 23 of 1994, but there is no material to suggest that the said petition was pressed rather the orders goes to show which remains undisputed also that the first party to the criminal case no. 06 of 2016 did not take any interest nor pressed the said petitioner. Under such circumstances, there is no way Executive Magistrate could have allowed the said petition rather second party appeared and adduced evidence, so the Executive Magistrate has rightly passed order on the merits of the case and the undisputed fact remains that the evidence in [2026:JHHC:21003 ] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2793 of 2018 the record put forth by the second party goes to show that there is material in the record to show that the second party was in possession of the disputed land. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 06.09.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 06 of 2016 in declaring the possession of the second party over the disputed land till any contrary order is passed by any competent court of law and this Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar has misdirected himself under the wrong notion that the petition under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was ever pressed by the party. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that interference with the order impugned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar that is the order dated 06.09.2016 passed in criminal case no. 06 of 2016 is unwarranted and uncalled for in exercise of the power under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same is not sustainable in law, therefore, the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 passed in Criminal Revision no. 43 of 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Deoghar is quashed and set aside and the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Deoghar in Criminal Case no. 06 of 2016 is restored. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07th July, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on 20/07/2026