JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Twelve petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Honble Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.1.1998 passed Shri Mohammad Ali, Additional Sessions Judge II, Khagaria in Cr.Revision No. 188 of 1993. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria in Case No.685 (M) of 1993 by his order dated 12.10.1993. 2. The present petition was admitted on 27.3.1998 and while admitting the case, this court had directed that during the pendency of this application, the operation of the orders impugned dated 12.10.1993 and also dated 15.1.1998 shall remain stayed. Till date, the order of stay is continuing. 3. It appears that after issuance of notice, Opp.Parties have appeared through their advocates and Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Opp.Party No.2 through Sri Sheel Bhadra Jha, Advocate and Sri Gopal Prasad Keshri was represented through Sri Janki Nandan Prasad and Sri Sheel Bhadra Jha, advocates. However, at the time of hearing none has come forward to place the stand of Opp.Party nos. 2 and 3. 4. Sri Rajendra Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging both the orders, submits that vide Annexure-1, i.e. order dated 12.9.1993, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria had passed a detailed order in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate had examined the documents produced by the parties and thereafter by order dated 12.9.1993 he held that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question and thereafter notices issued against the petitioners were withdrawn in that case and order was passed in favour of the petitioners. Sri Narain further submits that without any rhyme and reason only within a month, the same Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the petitioners, which is Annexure-2 to the petition for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria is clear-cut an act of abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, he submits that this Court may intervene into the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria is clear-cut an act of abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, he submits that this Court may intervene into the matter. Moreover, in the present case, immediately after initiation of the proceeding, this Court vide its order dated 27.3.1998 stayed the proceeding, which was proposed to be initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the stay is still continuing. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of stay of the proceeding, which was initiated 12 years back, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct to further proceed with the same proceeding, which was initiated in 1998. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is evident from Annexure-1 that the same Magistrate had delivered possession of the petitioners over the land in question in favour of the petitioner, then immediately within a month there was no occasion for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue notice for initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the revisional court appears to have not exercised its jurisdiction in its right perspective. 6. Accordingly both the orders i.e. order dated 12.10.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria and also order dated 15.1.1998 passed by the revisional court, are hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.