JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 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 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajmahal in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 as well as the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal has upheld the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajmahal in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 whereby in exercise of the power under section 147 of CrPC, the obstruction caused by a wall and a tanti constructed thereon over a 10 ft. wide road was directed to be removed. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajmahal in Cr. Misc. Case No.284 of 2021 first exercised the power under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. while the case was filed for right of way under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. The said order of the SDM, Rajmahal was challenged in Cr. Rev. No.42 of 2021 and by the order passed in Cr. Rev. No.42 of 2021, the case was remitted back and in compliance of the order passed in the said criminal revision vide order dated 17.11.2022; the SDM, Rajmahal in exercise of the power under Section 147 of CrPC accepted the right of way petition of the first party and ordered for construction of the 10 Ft. wide road after removing obstruction on the road. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022, the petitioner herein filed criminal revision no.102 of 2022 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal. But in the said criminal revision no.102 of 2022 the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 12.09.2022 initiating the proceeding under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022.. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal on the basis of the map of the area where dispute existed supplied by the SDM, Rajmahal came to the conclusion that father of the petitioner-who was the revisionist had given consent for construction of the road, of course not under any approved plan. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022.. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal on the basis of the map of the area where dispute existed supplied by the SDM, Rajmahal came to the conclusion that father of the petitioner-who was the revisionist had given consent for construction of the road, of course not under any approved plan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal also considered that disputed land has been acquired by the government as was evident from the bank documents. Since the revisionist has no right to obstruct the road on the land which was acquired by the government and as the report of the revenue authority revealed that the road leading to the village- Lakhipur from NH-80 has been obstructed without any justification by the petitioner herein who was the revisionist before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal and as the entire villagers of Lakhipur filed a petition before the SDM, Rajmahal for right of way and no illegality has been committed by the SDM, Rajmahal in passing the impugned order and dismissed the criminal revision. The petitioner never challenged the order passed in Cr. Rev. No.42 of 2021 and thus the said order has reached finality. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Chaturgun Turha and Others vs. Jamadar Mian reported in 1960 SCC OnLine Pat 174 and submits that therein it was observed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court that initiation of the proceeding under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. without there being any likelihood of breach of peace and without any finding that the first party had exercised the right within three months next before the institution of the enquiry went on to hold in that case that as the Magistrate had no power to direct the second party to the proceeding to remove the construction by them on their own way and not by the government order was bad in law. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that the land in question was never acquired by the Government of Jharkhand and the statement in the initial petition dated 05.09.2022 claiming use of a 10 feet wide Kachi Road on Plot No.164 of Mouza-Mastangarh stands falsified in view of the fact that the same land is entered in the name of Gayanath Mandal in Register-II. It is then submitted that the order dated 12.09.2022 initiating the proceeding under Section 147 of Cr.P.C. was wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of mandatory satisfaction. It is next submitted that the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Cr. Revision No.102 of 2022 is also not in accordance with law. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that though the petitioner challenged the final order passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022, so had the petitioner any grievance against the order dated 12.09.2022 passed in the said Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022, he could have challenged that in the said criminal revision but even though he availed and exercised his right for approaching the revisional court, but there the petitioner having not challenged the order dated 12.09.2022, therefore, the same is not open to be challenged for the first time in this Cr.M.P. which is directed against the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022. It is next submitted that all the orders were passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 in compliance of the order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021 and the said order passed in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021 having not been challenged by anyone and has thus attained finality and the same was binding upon the SDM, Rajmahal. It is then submitted that as in the said order, categorical direction was given to the SDM, Rajmahal to pass order in exercise of the power under section 147 of the CrPC and the SDM, Rajmahal having passed the orders in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 in consonance and in compliance with the direction given by the Revisional Court in its order passed in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021, so, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the learned SDM, Rajmahal in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022. It is then submitted that thus the Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022 has rightly been dismissed. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022. It is then submitted that thus the Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022 has rightly been dismissed. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the boundary wall along with tanti has already been demolished and road has been constructed, so otherwise also the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. has become infructuous. Therefore, 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, it is pertinent to mention here that true, it is that the mandatory requirement of initiation of a proceeding under Section 147 of CrPC is of satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace with respect to the right of user of land within the local limits of the Executive Magistrate and of such satisfaction being recorded in writing. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the SDM, Rajmahal exercises its power under Section 147 of CrPC not suo motu but as per the order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021. It is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner during the hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition that he has not gone through the order passed in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021. The order of the said Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021 is not in the case record of this Cr.M.P., but there is a reference of the same in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022. 10. As submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 that the said order passed in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021 has not been challenged and has attained finality. The undisputed fact remains that all orders passed by the Revisional Court is binding upon the SDM, Rajmahal. Though, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022 challenging the final order passed in the Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022, but the said order dated 12.09.2022 passed in the Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was never challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022. 11. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022, but the said order dated 12.09.2022 passed in the Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 initiating the proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was never challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that though a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner vide Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022, a ground which was not raised in the said criminal revision, but which could have been raised in the criminal revision concerned, is not open to be agitated as a separate ground in this Cr.M.P., which is primarily directed against the order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2022. There is no dispute that the entire order passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.562 of 2022 was in accordance with the direction passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2021. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.