Patna High Court
Gauri Shankar Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief … on 19 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59236 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna
======================================================
Gauri Shankar Singh Son Of Sudama Singh Village Pandeypur Police Station
Neura District Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Patna Bihar
3. The Senior Superintendent Of Police, Patna Bihar
4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, Patna Bihar
5. The Circle Officer, Bihta, Patna Bihar
6. The Officer-In-Charge, Ps- Neura (Op), Bihta, Dist- Patna Bihar
7. Guddu Gope Son Of Ramdayal Rai Resident Of Village And Po- Painal, Ps-
Bihta, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP
For the Respondent : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.
Mr. JiTendra Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. That this application is being filed for quashing
the report of Circle Officer, Bihta as contained in letter no.
1895 dated 13.07.2023 along with Inspection report,
whereby whereunder proposal for initiating a proceeding u/s
144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) with regard
to ancestor land of the petitioner appertaining to Khata no.
1544, Plot no. 8606 and 8546, situated in Mauza Painal,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59236 of 2023 dt.19-06-2025
2/4
measuring an area of 2 acres and 08 decimals and further the
petitioner prays for issuance of a direction to the opposite
parties/authorities to provide all necessary protection for
construction of his boundary wall by the petitioner.
3. It appears that order dated 22.08.2023
passed by SDM, Danapur under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. is
the subject matter of the present quashing petition.
4. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 144
of Cr.P.C. for the sake of convenance and to understand the
position of law in better manner :-
144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance
or apprehended danger .--
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District
Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other
Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State
Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground
for proceeding under this section and immediate
prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such
Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material
facts of the case and served in the manner provided by
section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain
act or to take certain order with respect to certain
property in his possession or under his management, if
such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely
to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance
or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to
human life, health o r safety or a disturbance of the
public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of
emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not
admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the
person against whom the order is directed, be passed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59236 of 2023 dt.19-06-2025
3/4
ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a
particular individual, or to persons residing in a
particular place or area, or to the public generally when
frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for
more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that, if the State Government considers it
necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life,
health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it
may, by notification, direct that an order made by a
Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for
such further period not exceeding six months from the
date on which the order made by the Magistrate would
have, but for such ord er, expired, as it may specify in
the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or
on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or
alter any order made under this section, by himself or
any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his
predecessor-in-office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own
motion or on the application of any person aggrieved,
rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso
to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-
section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State
Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the
applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him
or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause
against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State
Government, as the case may be, rejects the
application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in
writing the reasons for so doing.
5. From the perusal of sub-clause 4 of Section
144 as mentioned above, it appears that the legal life of any
order passed under this Section shall remain in force for only
2 months subject to any notification of extension by State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59236 of 2023 dt.19-06-2025
4/4
Government. In case of extension even it cannot be exceeded
for more than 6 months.
6. Admittedly, there is no any notification of
State Government for extension of impugned order dated
22.08.2023
, and therefore it appears that same expired after
60 days, in view of Section 144 (4) of Cr.P.C., accordingly, it
appears that order under challenge become infructous.
7. Accordingly, the present quashing petition
stands dismissed being infructuous.
8. Let this judgment be communicated to court
concerned forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.06.2025 Transmission Date 24.06.2025