JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th October, 2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No. 2041 C of 1999, giving rise to Sikta Police Station Case No. 36 of 1999. 2. There are 18 Accused persons in this case. The Petitioner is the Circle Officer of Sikta and he has also been arrayed amongst the Accused persons. 3. The background and the facts of this case are that one of the Accused persons, namely, Mahendra Ram filed Sikta Police Station Case No. 04 of 1999 under Sections 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Complainant of the present case, alleging therein that he was not allowing Mahendra Ram to take water from a hand-pump situated on the land which is the GAIR MAZARUA AAM land. 4. The present occurrence is said to have taken place on 20th January, 1999, wherein it is said that 17 Accused persons entered the house of the complaint and looted it and also took away certain households articles and jewellery. The complaint case was sent for institution of FIR under Section 156 (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police after investigation found the case not to be true and recommended proceedings under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The Complainant filed a protest cum complaint petition. On 4th December, 2000, the Court accepted the final form and registered the protest petition treating it to be a complaint filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2. 5. The facts are that there is a GAIR MAZARUA AAM land which is said to have been encroached by Accused Nos. 1 to 17, was allegedly being used as a public road. A complaint was made by the son of the present Complainant before the Circle Officer, Sikta, who issued notice to the 17 Accused persons. On 28th June, 1997, the Amin submitted a report to the Circle Officer stating therein that the lands have been encroached upon. After the report was received, the Circle Officer passed an order for vacating the encroachment by 29th July, 1997. On 28th June, 1997, the Amin submitted a report to the Circle Officer stating therein that the lands have been encroached upon. After the report was received, the Circle Officer passed an order for vacating the encroachment by 29th July, 1997. it is alleged at this stage that the Circle Officer, Sikta was gained over and did not take any further steps to remove the encroachment and refused to supply the certified copy of the orders to the Complainant. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the occurrence is dated 20th January, 1999 when Accused Nos. 1 to 17 are said to have indulged in the acts of loot, whereas the complaint was filed on 1st February, 1999, after a great delay. It is also rightly submitted that as far asthe Circle Officer is concerned, his role was to pass an order for removing the encroachment and he has not indulged himself in any acts of loot or any acts which would constitute a criminal offence. On the other hand, Counsel for the Complainant submits that the Circle Officer by not removing the encroachment and not supplying the certified copy of the orders, has been gained over and therefore, is not following his own orders. It is said that the complaint was made to the District Magistrate regarding these facts. 7. It is apparent from the facts narrated aforesaid, that the proper procedure for the Complainant was to move the District Magistrate or the Land Reforms Deputy Collector for appointing a Magistrate and allotting Police force to implement the orders of the Circle Officer. The orders of the Circle Officer in tact indicate that he had held in favour of the State of Bihar by holding that the lands of the State of Bihar had been encroached upon by the Accused persons. 8. I may point out that the Complainant has not been able to show that he has any title or locus as far as the lands are concerned except that he being a citizen is entitled to make complaint against the encroachment made on any public land. 9. Considering all the facts which has been discussed above and the allegations, I find that no allegations under Sections 147, 452, 427, 379, 323, 380 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code are made out against this Petitioner in the entire complaint petition. 9. Considering all the facts which has been discussed above and the allegations, I find that no allegations under Sections 147, 452, 427, 379, 323, 380 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code are made out against this Petitioner in the entire complaint petition. Accordingly, the order dated 12th October, 2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint Case No. 2041 (C) of 2000 is hereby quashed. 10. In the result, this application is allowed.