JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for setting aside the notice dated 5.12.2000 issued under the signature of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur in Misc. Case No. 546 of 2000 on the basis of petition filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. A petition was filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur with a request to initiate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to land appertaining to Khata No. 647, Plot Nos. 7628, 7441, 7398, 10538. After filing of the petition on 5.12.2000, the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the petitioners to file show cause. After receipt of the notice, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. By an order dated 20.2.2002, this Court directed that until further orders, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 3. Shri Subash Chandra Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that even in the year 1985, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 were adamant to create dispute over the land in question. It was submitted that from time to time petitions filed by the opposite parties for initiating either a proceeding under Section 144 or 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected. It was submitted that lastly, prayer was rejected by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhanjharpur on 26.9.1994. 4. In this case, Shri Ashok Kumar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 4 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From the record, it appears that even in the year 1985, steps were taken on behalf of opposite party No. 2 for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of land in question. On 25.1.1985, the proceeding was dropped. While dropping the proceeding, the learned Magistrate had noticed that dispute was purely civil in nature. On 25.1.1985, the proceeding was dropped. While dropping the proceeding, the learned Magistrate had noticed that dispute was purely civil in nature. Again in the year 1993, the opposite parties took a futile effort, which was finally confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, by its order dated 6.12.1994, passed in Cr. Revision No. 2023 of 1994. 6. In view of aforesaid fact, it appears that time and again steps were taken for initiation of proceeding either under Section 144 or 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that dispute in between the parties cannot be settled by allowing either of the parties to invoke the provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the land in question. 7. Accordingly, the court is of the view that the notice and proceeding in Misc. Case No. 546 of 2000 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. If the opposite parties are aggrieved or are having any title or claim over the land in question, they can approach the court of competent jurisdiction of civil nature. 8. With above observation, the petition stands allowed.