Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Kumar Ravi The District Magistrate Gaya And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.968 of 2016 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1261 of 2014 ====================================================== Savitri Devi Wife of Nawal Kishore Singh, Resident of Village- Law, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Kumar Ravi the District Magistrate, Gaya.

2. Sri P.K. Singh, the Director, Economic Offence/Branch Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Vikash Baivaw, the Superintendent of Police, Gaya.

4. Sri Kishore Kumar, Former Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tekari, Gaya Sri Dinesh Kumar, present Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tekari, Gaya.

5. Sri Manish Kumar, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Administration, Gaya.

6. Sri Vidhyanand Jha, the Circle Officer, Takari, Gaya.

7. Sri Kar Sharma, the S.H.O. Tekari Police Station, Gaya.

8. Kamta Singh, Son of Gangavishun Singh.

9. Satyendra Singh Son of Ganga Vishun Singh.

10. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Kamta Singh

11. Dharmendra Kumar, Son of Kamta Singh.

12. Deepak Kumar, Son of Kamta Singh

13. Anil Kumar Son of Satyendra Singh

14. Janardhan Singh @ Angad Singh, Son of Late Sitaram Singh.

15. Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Sitaram Singh

16. Ajit Kumar, Son of janardhan Singh

17. Tulsi Yadav, Son of Jaddu Yadav.

18. Bishundeo Yadav Son of Hari Lal Yadav

19. Nizam Ali, Son of Md. Ali 8 to 19 All resident of Village- Law, P.S. Tekari District- Gaya.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp20 Nadeem Seraj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 10-08-2018 The opposite parties have filed a show cause in compliance of the order of this Court dated 18.12.2012 passed in CWJC No.22916 of 2012 whereunder it has been submitted that

Patna High Court MJC No.968 of 2016 (2) dt.10-08-2018 2/2 the private Opposite Party Nos. 8, 9 and 14 have already executed bonds and thereafter appropriate show cause has been given to the other private opposite parties and a proceeding under Section 110 of Cr. P.C. has also been initiated against them. The Opposite Parties in their show cause has further submitted that the present dispute is a land dispute for which the petitioner and the opposite parties are required to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Further, it has been stated that the private opposite parties approached the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 1100 of 2005, filed by the husband of the petitioner and he has failed to prove that the opposite parties are habitual criminal and there is apprehension of law and order situation.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to proceed further in the present case. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, however, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to such remedies as are available under the law for redressal of any other grievance.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U