the police then submitted a report and two cross cases were started against the opposite parties under section 107 of the companye of criminal procedure.
the accused were however stated to have been acquitted in that case.
the breaking of the idol gave rise to a criminal case against ram narain singh and arjan singh.
numberices were thereafter issued to the parties to furnish bond.
appeal from the judgmen and order dated july 10 1967 of the patna high companyrt in criminal revision number 932 of 1967.
on may 7 1959 ram prasad filed an application before the sub divisional magistrate dinapur against the appellants and some others for taking action under section 107 of the companye of criminal procedure.
p. singh for the appellants.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 63 n of 1968.
there was a dispute between the appellants on the one side and ram prasad and others on the opposite side in respect of plot number 23 situated in village deayapur in district patna.
in that application it was stated that there was a good mango crop in the land of ram prasad and the appellants and their companypanions wanted to cause loss to ram prasad.
it was further stated used to carry lathes and held out threats to ram prasad.
the appellants.
the idol was stated to have been installed by ram prasad.
they denied having held out any threat to ram prasad or having or removed.
the learned magistrate sent that application to the police.
his mango fruits.
the appellants denied the allegations against them and stated that they were peace loving citizens.
in october 1959 dispute again arose between the parties because of the alleged breaking of the idol of durga by some of the appellants.
s. bindra and r. c. prasad for the respondent.
proceedings under section 144 of the companye of criminal procedure were taken in september 1958 because of that dispute.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by khanna j. this is an appeal by special leave by ram narain singh and six others against the judgment of patna high court whereby their revision petition was dismissed in limine.
