Patna High Court
Sandip KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the SDM’s order closing the Section 163 proceeding cannot be set aside and the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, brothers, claimed that the opposite party (their brother) encroached on their land and filed a complaint leading to a proceeding under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) closed the proceeding on 7 January 2025 without hearing the parties or recording any reasons, merely stating that the stipulated period had ended. The petitioners filed a criminal revision, albeit 82 days late, seeking to set aside the SDM's order. The Court first condoned the delay but held that the SDM’s order could not be interfered with because a Section 163 proceeding requires a recorded satisfaction of apprehension of breach of peace and is of a transient nature. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the appropriate authority again if needed.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate’s order closing a Section 163 proceeding without recording any reasons or satisfaction of apprehension of breach of peace?
- Whether the High Court should set aside the SDM’s order and entertain the criminal revision despite the delay in filing?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land encroachment
- partition
- Section 163
- breach of peace
- criminal revision
- procedural delay
- SDM order
- BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.656 of 2025
======================================================
Sandip Kumar son of Late Rajani Kumar Sinha Permanent Address AT AND
Post Hilalpur, P.S.- Industria Area, District- Hajipur At Resident of B 1/5,
Right Side 2nd Floor, Rajauri Garden, West Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur Cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hajipur
Bihar
3. The Circle Officer, Hajipur Sadar, Vaishali Bihar
4. Sumit kumar Bhardwaj @ Sumit Kumar son of Resident of ward no. 6,
Hilalpur Madarpur, Vaishali
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Pallavi Lala, Advocate
For the O.P. No.4 : Ms. Bela Singh, Advocate
For the O.P.-State : Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 27-01-2026 Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2025
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
for condoning the delay in filing the present criminal revision
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
instant criminal revision petition has been filed after delay of 82
days but there is no deliberate delay or laches on part of the
petitioner.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory
application and submission made on behalf of the petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed and the delay in filing the present
criminal revision petition is condoned.
Re: Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2025
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no. 4 submits that the matter has become infructuous as
the process under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was initiated way back on 23.08.2024
and vide order dated 07.01.2025, the learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, closed the process observing
that the stipulated time period has ended.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order dated 07.01.2025 has been passed without hearing the
parties and without assigning any grounds except saying that the
stipulated period has ended. Such orders could not be sustained.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner and the
opposite party no. 4 are brothers and though a partition has
taken place between three brothers, no partition by metes and
bounds has taken place, still, the opposite party no. 4 started
constructing a house and encroached upon the land of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint before the
authorities and the police submitted a representation before the
learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
initiation of a proceeding under Section 163 of BNSS.
Therefore, the order impugned needs interference by this Court.
7. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
and on perusal of record, I find that the proceeding under
Section 163 of BNSS was started without recording any reason
or satisfaction by the learned SDM about the apprehension of
any breach of peace. Further, if any orders were passed, due to
transient nature of order, the same would have an effect only till
two months and thereafter, it would have lapsed. In the present
case, no such order has been passed and it is very surprising that
the learned SDM, Vaishali at Hajipur allowed the matter to
proceed without passing any effective order and ultimately,
closed the chapter holding that the stipulated period has ended.
Such orders should be deprecated in strongest terms. However,
considering the other aspect of the matter, no useful purpose
would be served in continuing the present proceeding, as even if
the impugned order is set aside. Considering the transient nature
of proceeding under Section 163 BNSS, the petitioner is always
at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the SDM for redressal of
his grievance. At the same time, as already noted, the present
proceeding has been initiated without recording any reasons or
satisfaction of learned SDM and a proceeding initiated without
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.656 of 2025(4) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
existence of grounds showing apprehension of breach of peace,
such proceeding could not come to any fruitful end.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I do
not think this Court needs to interfere with the order dated
07.01.2025 and, accordingly, the present petition is disposed of
granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law in
appropriate proceeding before the appropriate authority, if so
advised.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U
Checking your session…