Citation: Amrendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17844 of 2019, Patna High Court (Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha), decided on 05.10.2026 | CNR No. BRHC010143492019
The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used as a substitute for a second revision against a revisional court’s order, which Section 397(3) CrPC bars, unless there is patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction or a serious miscarriage of justice. Proceedings under Section 144 CrPC are temporary and emergent and cannot be made permanent by continuing them in another form, and Section 147 proceedings are preventive and cannot be used to decide title or civil rights over disputed land.
The Patna High Court has refused to use its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to revive a magistrate’s order in a passage (rasta) dispute, holding that a litigant cannot use that power as a “second revision” against a Sessions Court’s order.
Amrendra Kumar and two others, who bought land in Muzaffarpur between 2009 and 2011, said that they used a passage over the land and that Dr. Anzar Alam started blocking it by raising a boundary wall on land he said he had bought in August 2012. On a police report of March 2017, the SDM (East Muzaffarpur) started proceedings under Section 144 CrPC and, on 27 May 2017, converted them into proceedings under Section 147 CrPC, which covers disputes over a right of use of land or water likely to cause a breach of peace. Dr. Alam challenged this order in revision, and in November 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge set it aside. The petitioners then came to the High Court under Section 482. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha dismissed the application. He held that, in substance, it asked for a fresh look at an order already examined in revision, and under Kailash Verma, Section 482 cannot be used as a substitute for a second revision, which Section 397(3) bars. There was no patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction, and a different view being possible is not enough. The court also noted that a Section 144 order is temporary and normally lasts only two months unless extended by the State by notification, citing Kamla Kant Misra, Madhu Limaye and Anuradha Bhasin. It observed that the record did not show the original order’s date or any extension, and that the two-month limit cannot be bypassed by continuing the same proceeding in another form.
It added that Section 147 is preventive and does not let the Executive Magistrate decide title, and the police report cannot decide the civil rights of either side. The parties were left free to pursue their rights in a civil court, and the court clarified that its remarks do not decide title.