Patna High Court
Mustafa @ Md. MustafaversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order rejecting the criminal revision is set aside and quashed, and the revision must be heard on its merits after condoning the delay.
Summary
The petitioner, Mustafa, purchased a disputed plot of land and obtained mutation in his name. The opposite parties claimed ownership and initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the CrPC, which were later converted to a Section 145 proceeding on 5 September 2013. Mustafa filed a criminal revision challenging the conversion, but the Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected it on the ground of limitation, despite Mustafa’s explanation that he only became aware of the order on 6 August 2014. Mustafa sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which the lower court ignored. The Patna High Court held that the delay was condonable, quashed the order of 5 August 2015, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal revision filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation.
- Whether the delay in filing the revision can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 CrPC to Section 145 CrPC was lawful.
- Whether the order rejecting the revision should be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 144, 145
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- land dispute
- criminal revision
- limitation period
- condonation of delay
- Section 144 CrPC
- Section 145 CrPC
- property mutation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58226 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Mustafa @ Md. Mustafa Son of Haji Asgar Ali, resident of Village- Durgapur,
P.O.- Sukhasan, P.S.- Barari O.P. Semapur, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Jalauddin Son of Ayub Ali, resident of Village-Naya Tola Balughat, P.O.-
Sukhasan, P.S- Barari, District- Katihar.
3. Javed Ali Son of Latifur Rahman, Resident of Village- Balughat, P.O.-
Sukhasan, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.
4. Makbool Son of Saijuddin, resident of Village- Sukhasan, P.O.- Sukhasan,
P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.
5. Mistar Son of Makbool, resident of Village- Sukhasan, P.O.- Sukhasan, P.S.-
Barari, District- Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.N. Parbat, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy No.1App
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 06-01-2026 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned APP for the State. None has appeared on behalf
of the opposite parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 5.8.2015, passed by learned Additional
District and Session Judge IIIrd, Katihar, in Criminal Revision
Case No. 131 of 2014 (Mustafa Versus, Jalauddin and others) by
which the learned Additional District and Session Judge III rd
rejected the Criminal Revision case confirming the order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
2/8
5.9.2013, passed by learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Katihar,
in Case No. 144 M of 2013 (Jalauddin Versus, Javed Ali and
others), by which he converted proceeding under section 144 of
code of criminal procedure in a proceeding under section 145 of
code of criminal procedure.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present
application are that one late Dhandhari Sahani Son of late
Budhram Sahani was married twice and had three sons from his
first wife Koily Devi, namely, Charitar Sahani, Firangi Sahani
and Mangal Sahani. Out of these three sons Mangal Sahani died
unmarried, and Firangi Sahani died issueless leaving behind his
wife Sudhiya Devi who also died in the year 2005. Charitar
Sahani was married to one Jhunni Devi and both died leaving
behind a son namely, Santlal Sahani from the wedlock.
Similarly, said late Dhandhari Sahani had a son namely, Hare
Kishun Sahani from his second wife namely, Fagui Devi, who
was married to one Deoki Devi and both died leaving behind
four daughters namely, Akshara Devi, Parbati Devi, Tatasan
Devi and Surji Devi, who all are married. It is stated that
disputed land covered under Khata no. 28, plot no. 3560 having
area 59 decimal 7.1/2 kari (wrongly mentioned as area 60
decimal) was purchased land of late Sudhiya Devi wife of late
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
3/8
Firangi Sahani and after her death, it came in possession of
Santlal Sahani. The present petitioner purchased the said land
from said Santlal Sahani vide registered Sale Deed No. 14050
dated 16.7.2012 for valid consideration of rupees 1,85,000/- and
came in possession of the same. The name of petitioner has been
mutated over the land in question in accordance with law in
government register and having found his possession over the
same and after payment of rent, he has been issued rent receipt
also.
4. In the year 2012 vide non F.I.R. No. 22 of 2012
dated 11.11.2012 submitted by the police before learned Sub-
divisional Magistrate, Katihar based on the application of
opposite party 2nd set regarding dispute amongst the parties
over a piece of land, Case No. 229 M of 2012 was started under
section of 144 of Cr.P.C. In the said case, the opposite party 2 nd
set claimed that he had purchased land from one Surji Devi vide
sale deed no. 14729 dated 20.7.2012 for consideration of rupees
1,83,000/- however, in the said sale deed Khata no. 943 was
wrongly mentioned which was again corrected as Khata no. 28
by said Surji Devi vide sale deed no. 24034 dated 29.11.2012.
As per case of opposite party 2nd set Surji Devi was adopted
daughter of late Sudhiya Devi. Later on Case No. 229 M of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
4/8
2012 was dropped by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate,
Katihar vide his order dated 19.1.2013 on the ground that
statutory period of 144 proceeding was going to expire. After
dropping of aforesaid 144 proceeding, the opposite party 2nd set
on the almost same set of facts had again got submitted non
F.I.R. No. 16 of 2013 dated 30.6.2013 by the police before
learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Katihar regarding alleged
dispute over land in question and again Case No. 144 M of 2013
was started under Section of 144 of Cr.P.C., vide order dated
8.7.2013.
5. After service of notices, the petitioner appeared
and objected to the claim of opposite party 2 nd set as well as the
maintainability of said proceeding on various grounds of law
and facts. The opposite party 2nd set also submitted his show
cause on the almost same set of facts as taken by him in the
earlier proceeding aforesaid. However, in the month of June
2014 to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he received copy of
notice issued under section 145 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Sub-
divisional Magistrate, Katihar and he approached the concerned
office to enquire about it but no satisfactory reply was given to
him regarding passing of order dated 5.9.2013 behind his back.
Thereafter, he appeared in the case on 11.6.2014, the date fixed,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
5/8
with prayer for adjournment which was granted. In the
meantime, the petitioner also became aware about pendency of
Mutation Appeal No. 722 of 2014 filed by opposite party 2 set
before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms against the
order of rejection of his claim of Mutation over the land in
question and thus on 6.8.2014, the petitioner filed an application
in the Case No. 144 M of 2013 challenging its maintainability
on various grounds of law and facts on the basis of which
direction was issued to the opposite party 2nd set for filing
rejoinder. But with an intention to delay the matter, neither any
rejoinder was filed by the opposite party 2nd set on subsequent
dates nor any final order was passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Katihar on the application of petitioner
and thus having found no alternative the petitioner applied for
certified copy of entire order sheet of case no. 144 M of 2013
which was prepared and handed over to him on 22.10.2014.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that after receipt of copy of order sheet, the petitioner
challenged the validity of order dated 5.9.2013 well within
limitation period from the date of receipt of copy of order by
filing Criminal Revision no. 131 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014
before the learned District and Session Judge, Katihar, which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
6/8
came for final hearing before the learned Additional District and
Session Judge IIIrd, Katihar. During pendency of Criminal
Revision no. 131 of 2014, as per legal advice, the petitioner also
filed an application under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, on
17.1.2015 for condonation of delay if any, in filing the Criminal
Revision Application in the circumstances mentioned above. He
further submitted that in the said Criminal Revision case
opposite party 2nd set appeared and filed his rejoinder on
17.3.2015 in which he objected the maintainability of the case
mainly on the ground that Criminal Revision was barred by
limitation and the matter was heard by the learned Additional
District and Session Judge IIIrd, Katihar, who after hearing
rejected the Criminal Revision case in illegal manner vide his
impugned order dated 5.8.2015 on the ground of limitation by
committing error of record and holding that the explanation for
condoning the delay given by the petitioner was not satisfactory.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 5.8.2015
has been passed by the learned Additional District and Session
Judge IIIrd, Katihar in wholly illegal manner and is not
sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that it would be
evident from the contents of order sheet of Criminal Revision
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
7/8
case 131 of 2014 that the learned Additional District and
Session Judge IIIrd, Katihar has been himself admitted that the
petitioner became aware about order dated 5.9.2013 at least on
6.8.2014, but he refused to condone the delay without
considering and stating a single word regarding the explanation
of delay in filing criminal revision application for the period in
between 6.8.2014 to11.11.2014 given in application for
condonation of delay, which would be of about two months.
8. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently
opposed the application of the petitioner.
9. I have heard and considered the submissions of
the parties and have gone through the material available on
record.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the revision
application should have been heard on merits after condoning
the delay as the petitioner became aware of the order dated
05.09.2013 at least on 06.08.2014.
11. In view of the discussions made above, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated
05.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge IIIrd, Katihar, is not sustainable in law and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58226 of 2015(5) dt.06-01-2026
8/8
same is hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the present application stands
allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge IIIrd, Katihar/concerned Court
below for fresh consideration keeping in view the facts of the
case and after considering the explanation for the delay in filing
the revision petition. The Court below shall pass a reasoned
order on the merits in accordance with law after hearing both
parties.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U
Checking your session…