JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.3409 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. Cr.M.P. No.723 of 2025 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Cr. Revision No.72 of 2023 and also the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in 2. The brief fact of the case is that the private opposite parties intimated Rikhiya Police Station claiming that anti-social elements are making illegal construction over their plot of land under Jamabandi No. 8 (22/31) and Khata No.85/31, area 11000 square feet of Mouza Maheshmara Dahijore in the district of Deoghar. On the basis of written-report, Sanha No.04/2020 and 18/2020 was registered by Rikhiya Police Station and upon being intimated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was drawn up by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar. The parties were issued notice. The parties filed their written-statement, filed documents in support of their case including the photocopies of the documents. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate also called for the reports from the Circle Amin Officer, Mohanpur as well as from the concerned; who had stated that father of the private opposite party No.2 acquired 0.36 acres of land in L.A. Case No.84/1968-69. Thereafter he got his name mutated and paid rent to the Government. After the death of his father, the private opposite party No.2 herein who is the first party in the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., came in possession of the land in question and subsequently she leased out the land to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for twenty (20) years and they also stated in their reports, that on physical verification they found the office of H.P.C.L. Petrol Pump over the place of occurrence land and on that basis, the first party to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was found to be in possession of the land in question. In the process of arriving at such conclusion, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate relied upon the photocopy of the proceedings of L.A. Case No.84/1968-69, the award statements, the report of the Circle Officer, acquisition plan, the photocopy of the current survey settlement Parcha, the photocopy of the land revenue receipts and the lease agreement and vide order dated 06.06.2023 in Cri. Misc. Case No.138 of 2020, confirmed the possession of first party to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein, filed Cri. Revision No.72 of 2023 which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar considered that the undisputed fact remains that the ancestors of the second party to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. who are the petitioners herein, received compensation for acquisition of their land and the acquired land was given to the father of the first party and the said land was later on leased to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on which its office and other constructions were found during the local inspection. It is not the case of the second party that their ancestors also hold and possessed the land of Jamabandi No.8 which was acquired and given to the father of the first party. Thus, the second party have failed to explain if the land in dispute is under Jamabandi No.8 and if the father of the first party has not acquired the land of Jamabandi No.8 then why the compensation was received by the ancestors of the second party. The revisional court also considered that it appears that the original of the documents was produced and the same were returned back and by thus, considering did not find any illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the Criminal Revision. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Kaadu Mushar & Others vs. Jagdish Debi & Others reported in 1978 Supreme (Pat) 131 wherein it was observed that if the Magistrate while coming to the finding in favour of the opposite party relies on the documents which were not proved as required by law then such order of the Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. 4. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Rai vs. Jai Prakash Rai reported in 1993 Supreme (Pat) 55 and submits that in that case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed a manifest illegality in relying upon extraneous matters i.e., documents not proved according to the law of evidence and held the order to be illegal and quashed and set aside the same. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners on enquiry found that the land acquisition proceeding was illegal because in the year 1968-69, Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act which provides that the acquisition of the raiyati land for horticulture, residential and gardening purpose was repealed. It is further submitted that the petitioners never allowed to take possession of their land. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the photocopies were filed by both the parties and without objection from the respective other party. So, no illegality has been committed by relying upon the said unobjected photocopies. It is next submitted that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding and in such proceeding besides the documents, the report of the concerned Amin Circle Officer and was also received which went to show that the first party to the proceeding has been in possession of the land in question through their lessee Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in arriving at the conclusion that the members of the first party are in possession of the disputed land. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Therefore, 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple & Another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752 had the occasion to consider whether the photocopies admitted in evidence without objection can be said to be inadmissible for originals were not produced but the same was answered in the negative relying upon the ratio of Privy Council Judgment in the case of Padman vs. Hanwanta reported in AIR 1915 PC 111 . Similarly, in the case of P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal reported in (1972) 1 SCC 9 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the admissibility of police reports without examining the Head Constable who covered the meetings and the reports were marked without any objection and in that case it was held that the photocopy of the document was not open to be objected on the ground of admissibility; relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Bhagat Ram vs. Khetu Ram reported in AIR 1929 PC 110 . In the case of Smt. Dayamathi Bai vs. K. M. Shaffi reported in AIR 2004 SC 4082 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that if the copies of documents are admitted without objection in the trial court; no objection can be taken in appeal. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact remains that the photocopies of the documents filed by the rival parties in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate were without objection from the rival sides. Both the parties relied upon the photocopies of their respective documents. The nature of a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is summary in nature to prevent breach of peace and the limited purpose of the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is to determine the possession. It is a settled principle of law that the right, title and interest of the parties cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 9. It is a settled principle of law that the right, title and interest of the parties cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of such facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that when the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in exercise of its power under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was Amin primarily based on the report of the Circle Officer and the concerned and additionally the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had also relied upon the photocopies of the proceedings of a L.A. Case and other documents as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, without the same being objected to by the members of the second party and the members of the second party have also filed the photocopies of the documents which were also considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not a sufficient ground for upsetting the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality either in the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in Cr. Revision No.72 of 2023 or in the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in Cri. Misc. Case No.138 of 2020. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.7268 of 2025 stands disposed of being infructuous.