Decided on January 14,2020

Biranchi Narayan Khuntia Appellant


B.R.Sarangi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who claims to be the brother of opposite party no.3, by way of this application, seeks following reliefs: "(a) Admit and allow the case. (b) Call for the records from the court below. c) To pass an order directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal case U/S 144 Cr.P.C. over the same self land having stitiban khata no.177/63 of Plot No.258/598 area A0.02 decs out of area A0.018 decs of MouzaGoudabadasahi, Puri in any manner whatsoever. (d) To pass an order awarding compensation of 5,00,000/- to be paid jointly to be paid by O.P. No.1 and 3 for harassment, mental agony and humiliation. (e) Pass any order/orders in favour of petitioner; And for which act of your kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no.3, who happens to be the brother of the petitioner, filed Criminal Misc. Case No.665 of 2017 before opposite party no.1 for initiation of proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C. in respect of Plot No.258/598 area Ac.0.02 decimals, out of area Ac.0.018 decimals, under Khata No.177/63 of mouza Goudabadasahi, Puri holding that it is ancestral property of both the parties and there is existence of apprehension of breach of peace. As the said criminal misc. case was dropped within a couple of month, opposite party no.3 again moved criminal misc. case no.701 of 2017 in respect of self-same khata and plot for initiation of proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which was also dropped after a lapse of time. Subsequently, criminal misc. cases no.182 of 2018 and no.442 of 2018 were filed by opposite party no.3, wherein orders dated 27.04.2018 and 21.06.2018 were passed by opposite party no.1 and with expiry of the period, the same were also dropped. As such, it is alleged the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri-opposite party no.1 has passed successive orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C at the instance of opposite party no.3 just to harass the petitioner extensively and to humiliate him and face mental agony. Therefore, direction may be given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for the self-same land over Stitiban Khata and, seeks reliefs as mentioned above. Hence this application.
(3.) Mr. T. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that successive applications filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. could not and should not have been entertained by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri and entertainment of such application shows exercise of excess power which is abusive and exclusively to cause harassment, humiliation and mental agony to the petitioner by compelling to attend the court time and again. It is further contended that this Court should pass blanket order directing the SubDivisional Magistrate, Puri not to institute any criminal proceedings under Section 144, Cr.P.C. over the disputed plot and further seeks direction to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to pay jointly by opposite parties no.1 and 3. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, 1984 AIR(SC) 51 and Surendra Kumar Patra v. Kanduri Bhata,2005 1 OLR 118.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.