Patna High Court - Orders
Binda Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 5 October, 2018
Author: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Bench: Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6233 of 2016
======================================================
1. Binda Rai S/o late Sukan Rai
2. Lalbabu Rai s/o late Sukan Rai
3. Heera Rai S/o late Sukan Rai
4. Binod Rai S/o Shri Heera Rai All are r/o Village-Sakala, P.s Sidhwaliya,
District Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shivji S/o late Sukan Rai r/o Village-Sakala, P.s Sidhwaliya District
Gopalganj.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL ORDER
2 05-10-2018Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
On account of conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to 145 Cr.P.C. by the order impugned dated 01.04.2015 passed by SDM, Gopalganj in Misc. Case No.1082/2015 is under challenge in the instant petition.
It is evident from the lower court record that on 04.02.2015 on a petition filed on behalf of O.P. No.2/First Party a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated with regard to Khata No.8, Khesra No.325, Area 3 kattha, Khata No.27, Khesra No.122, Area 3 kattha 12.5 dhur, Khata No.8, Khesra No.285, Area 4 kattha 6 dhur, Khata No.66, Khesra No.120, Area 3 kattha 13.5 dhur wherein, even after notice petitioner/opposite party failed to appear. Vide order dated 01.04.2015 the learned lower court had converted it under Section 145 Cr.P.C., subject matter of challenge. Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.6233 of 2016 (2) dt.05-10-2018 2
Conversion of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into 145 Cr.P.C., has not been prescribed under the Cr.P.C. However, by catena of decisions, it has been settled at rest that such conversion is permissible and that being so, the order did not require interference whereupon instant petition is dismissed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
Prakash Narayan
U T