Judgment 1. Umesh Sinha @ Umesh Kumar Sinha and two others, namely, Pramod Sinha and Anil Sinha, have filed this application for quashing the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Katihar in a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. bearing case no. 17M of 2006 by virtue of which learned S.D.M. on initiation of a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. has converted the same into a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the otherside. 3. The Officer-in-charge of Falka Police Station in the district of Katihar submitted a report on 14.2.2006 before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar, on the basis of which proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. The opposite party no. 2 filed an application stating that he got a sale-deed executed and registered on 31.8.84 with respect to 1.12 acres of land, appertaining to Khata No. 340, Plot Nos. 849 and 850 out of the total area of 2.25 acres of land and on the same day his uncle (opposite party no. 3) also got another sale-deed executed and registered in respect of remaining half area measuring 1.13 acres out of the aforementioned two plots from Most. Ram Sundari Devi and got their names mutated. The aforementioned lands have been taken in possession by the petitioners shown as second party in the report. During enquiry, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are said to have given out that they are residents of a distant place and, therefore, lands have been taken in possession forcibly by the petitioners. The parties were asked to submit their show cause and both the parties putting their appearance filed show cause on 27.4.2006. In their show cause, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 admitted that the order under Sec. 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act has been passed in favour of the petitioner, which was a collusive order according to them. 4. Assailing the impugned order, it has been asserted that there was dispute between the land lady (vendor) of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner no.1 and in accordance with the provision of Sec. 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, crop division case no. 3 of 84-85 was started and it was decided on 23.6.84 under proper receipt. After transfer another case no. 2 and 3 and the petitioner no.1 and in accordance with the provision of Sec. 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, crop division case no. 3 of 84-85 was started and it was decided on 23.6.84 under proper receipt. After transfer another case no. 21 of 84-85 was started under Sec. 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act against the purchasers, who are opposite party nos. 2 and 3, and on order of Anchal Adhikari at Falka the local Mukhiya divided the paddy crop between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. So, order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding conversion of the proceeding is bad in law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A.P.P. for the State it appears that it is a simple matter of conversion of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. of course, the parties have filed their respective show cause but division of crop and passing of the order in respect of Bataidari claim, consideration of genuineness of the documents etc. are also subject matter of due consideration in the said proceeding. 6. The parties are supposed to lead their evidence so as to show genuineness of their documents and that can be looked into and considered in the said proceeding. Merely on filing and laying such claim in their show cause does not warrant dropping of the proceeding in the moment rather it is also open for due consideration so far the genuineness of the documents and evidence to be adduced by the parties are concerned. 7. In the facts and circumstances, there does not appear any illegality in the impugned order. So, it requires no interference. The petition, thus, stands dismissed with a direction to the court below for consideration of the defence and facts stated in their respective show cause in accordance with law.