Patna High Court
AYUSH ANANDversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The order passed under Section 144 is inoperative and beyond the executive magistrate’s jurisdiction, rendering it a nullity.
Summary
The petitioners, Ayush Anand and Gyanshu Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dated 17 November 2023 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which found that respondents Nos. 5‑7 were in possession of a disputed property. The Court noted that an order under Section 144 has a statutory life of two months unless specifically extended, and cannot exceed six months in total. Since the impugned order was more than six months old, it was already inoperative. Moreover, the Court held that Section 144 empowers an executive magistrate only to issue preventive orders to avert obstruction, annoyance, danger to life or public tranquility, and does not confer authority to determine or order possession of property. Consequently, the finding on possession was beyond the magistrate’s competence and was declared a nullity. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order passed under Section 144 Cr.PC on 17‑11‑2023 is still operative given the statutory life limits of such orders
- Whether an executive magistrate has jurisdiction to pass orders concerning possession of property under Section 144 Cr.PC
- Whether the impugned order can be quashed on the grounds of being beyond the magistrate’s competence
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 144
Subjects
- Section 144
- preventive order
- executive magistrate
- statutory life of order
- property possession
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25 of 2024
======================================================
1. Ayush Anand Son Of Late Shailender Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Singh,
R/O Village- Barahiya Tola Dhanraj Ward No. 6, P.O. and P.S.- Barahiya,
Dist.- Lakhisarai
2. Gyanshu Kumar Son Of Late Shailender Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Singh,
R/O Village- Barahiya Tola Dhanraj Ward No.-6, P.O. and P.S.- Barahiya,
Dist.- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai Bihar
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Lakhisarai Bihar
4. The S.H.O. Of Police Station At Barahia, Lakhisarai Bihar
5. Devi Singh Son Of Late Siya Singh R/O Village- Barahiya, Tola Ram Sen
Ward No. -4, P.S.- Brahiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai
6. Ramjee Singh @ Amit Kumar Son Of Devi Singh R/O Village- Barahiya,
Tola Ram Sen Ward No. -4, P.S.- Brahiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai
7. Jhunni Singh @ Sumit Kumar Son Of Devi Singh R/O Village- Barahiya,
Tola Ram Sen Ward No. -4, P.S.- Brahiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 The present writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners for quashing the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by
learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Case No. 52M
of 2023 under Section 144 Cr.PC, whereby learned Executive
Magistrate has refrained from passing any order, but he has
given finding that report of the Circle Officer is true. As per
report of Circle Officer, the second party, who are Respondent
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.25 of 2024(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
Nos. 5 to 7 herein, are in possession of the property in question.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned G.A.-7 for the State.
4. There is no dispute that any order passed by any
Executive Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.PC has statutory life
for two months unless it is extended by specific order and the
maximum period for which the order passed under Section 144
Cr.PC is effective only for six months.
5. Hence, the impugned order passed long back on
17.11.2023 is already inoperative.
6. I further find that under Section 144 Cr.PC, learned
Executive Magistrate is competent to pass any preventive order
against the person to abstain him from certain act or to take
certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or
under his management with intent to prevent any obstruction,
annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger
to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public
tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. But learned Executive
Magistrate has given finding regarding possession of the second
party i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein. The possession of the
land in question which is beyond extended scope of Section 144
Cr.PC.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.25 of 2024(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
7. As such, the finding of learned Executive
Magistrate regarding possession of the property is nullity for
want of any competence of the Executive Magistrate to pass
such order under Section 144 Cr.PC.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.