JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.O. Deoghar in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 48 of 2020. On 23.03.2021 the following order was passed in this case and on that day the impugned order was stayed: “Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. Vide order dated 18.02.2021, notice was directed to be issued upon opposite party no. 6. Undelivered cover with A/D has been kept on the record. I.A. No. 1288 of 2021 has been filed for staying the operation of the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 3. Title Suit No. 77 of 1998 was filed by Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb. Chiranjeev Kumar Deb executed two registered sale deeds bearing number 2169 and 2170 of 1998 in favour of respondent no. 6, her 2 husband namely Shashi Kumar respectively. The sale deeds were executed behind the back of Late Dilip Kumar Ray by Chiranjeev Kumar Deb on the basis of the alleged power of attorney. On the basis of the sale deeds, respondent no. 6 and her husband Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb filed a joint compromise petition before the court below at Deoghar. Pursuant to that they have been able to obtain favourable decree dated 04.01.1999 by the learned court below in Title Suit No. 77 of 1998. Dilip Kumar Ray and all the legal heir of Kamala Prasad were not made party. Pursuant to decree in the said title suit, respondent no. Pursuant to that they have been able to obtain favourable decree dated 04.01.1999 by the learned court below in Title Suit No. 77 of 1998. Dilip Kumar Ray and all the legal heir of Kamala Prasad were not made party. Pursuant to decree in the said title suit, respondent no. 6 and her husband Shashi Kumar filed an application before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking possession of the scheduled property, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 50 of 1998, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.1998. Respondent no. 6, Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb again filed an execution case being Execution Case No. 3 of 1999. The daughter of Late Kamala Prasad came to know about the said execution case and she filed an objection petition dated 03.05.1999. By taking notice of the said objection, Execution Case No. 3 of 1999 was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.1999 and held that decree is a nullity and is rendered nonexecutable due to fraud played by respondent no. 6, Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 72 of 2004 was filed by Late Dilip Kumar Roy before the court of Civil Judge-1, Deoghar praying therein that sale deeds number 2169 and 2170 of 1998 be declared null and void. Respondent no. 6 filed Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2019, which is pending in the court below. Respondent no. 6 and Shashi Kumar have again filed compromise petition. The legal heir of Late Kamala Prasad, who were party in Title Suit No. 72 of 2004 executed a registered partition deed dated 10.05.2019, which was challenged by respondent no. 6 with her husband Shashi Kumar by filing Complaint Case No. 12 of 2020- 21 and notice has been issued upon the heir of Late Kamala Prasad which has been challenged by Mrs. Arti Roy Choudhary before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7 of 2021. On the basis of the sale deed, which was declared null and void, respondent no. 6 filed a complaint case before respondent no. 3 for initiating of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. alleging that illegal construction is being done on her property. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 08.02.2021 Misc. Case No. 12 of 2020- 21 has been stayed till further order. Mr. 6 filed a complaint case before respondent no. 3 for initiating of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. alleging that illegal construction is being done on her property. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 08.02.2021 Misc. Case No. 12 of 2020- 21 has been stayed till further order. Mr. Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of notice issued by this Court in this petition, respondent no. 6 is not purposely appearing in the Court. He further submits that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. He further submits that in light of Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. the force of the order come to an end after two months. He also submits that the same can be extended further for 6 months that too by the Government and that power is not with the Magistrate while exercising power under Section 144 Cr.P.C. He further submits that by the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, the learned court below has stayed the said Complaint Case No. 12 of 2020-21 till the outcome of the case. He also submits that this order has been passed against the mandate of law and the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Gulam Abbas vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1978) 1 SCC 226 and Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 4 SCC 522 . In view of the above facts and considering the mandate of Section 144 Cr.P.C. as well as the background as depicted, herein above particularly the blanket order passed by respondent no. 3, the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 shall be kept in abeyance, till the next date of listing. Let fresh notice be issued upon respondent no. 6 by ordinary process as well as registered post with A/D, for which, requisites etc. must be filed within a week. Post this matter after service of notice upon opposite party no. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1288 of 2021 stands disposed of.” 3. After the said order, the learned S.D.M. Deoghar had again initiated another proceeding with regard to the same land under section 144 Cr.P.C. which was numbered as Cr. M.P. No. 367/2021. must be filed within a week. Post this matter after service of notice upon opposite party no. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1288 of 2021 stands disposed of.” 3. After the said order, the learned S.D.M. Deoghar had again initiated another proceeding with regard to the same land under section 144 Cr.P.C. which was numbered as Cr. M.P. No. 367/2021. After that, I.A. No. 5023/2021 was filed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the S.D.M. Deoghar and I.A. No. 5024/2021 was filed with a prayer for amendment in the prayer portion of the petition. As on receiving of the stay order passed by this Court the concerned S.D.M. has dropped the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. and started new proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. by order dated 08.09.2021. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the respondent S.D.M. Deoghar, it has been disclosed that the subsequent order dated 08.09.2021 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 367/2021 has been dropped. 4. Mr. Pallav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 which is under challenge in the main petition, permanently either of the parties have been restrained to go to the land which is not the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.M. In the light of sub section 4 of section 144 Cr.P.C. the order remained in force only for two months from the date on which it is issued or made. It has been submitted that cancellation of registration deed was being examined by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and on that basis the learned S.D.M has restrained the petitioner to await for the decision by the Deputy Commissioner. It has been further pointed out that the proceeding of the Deputy Commissioner challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7/2021 which has been stayed by this Court and the said proceeding is pending. 5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel has appeared in I.A. No. 4/2022 filed for intervening in the petition. 6. Since the said proceeding has already been dropped by the S.D.M. there is no need of passing any order in the said I.A pressed by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel. 7. In view of this, there is no meaning of passing of such order of permanently restraining either of the parties by the S.D.M. to go on the disputed site. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel. 7. In view of this, there is no meaning of passing of such order of permanently restraining either of the parties by the S.D.M. to go on the disputed site. In view of sub section 4 of section 144 Cr.P.C. that order has lost its force. Since both the orders are not in existence today, the instant petition [Cr. M.P. No. 66 of 2021] is being disposed of. 8. Accordingly, all the I.As. stand disposed of.