Decided on February 17,1982

GANI DAR Appellant
Rehmi (Mst ) Respondents


- (1.) IN a matter u/s 145 Cr. P. C. an order came to be passed u/s 145 (1) by the Executive Magistrate Bandipora. A revision against the same was taken before the Session Judge Baramulla who vide, his order dt. 9 -12 -80 made a reference to this court with the observation that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate did not appear to have been passed in accordance with the previsions of Sub Sec (1) of Sec 145 Cr. P. C. and therefore, submitted that the older u/s 145 (4) passed by the learned Executive Magistrate be quashed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) IT appears that on spot there did exist a dispute with regard to the possession of a piece of land. When the application was first filed before the Executive Magistrate, he appears to have sent the same to the S. H. O. Bandipora Police Station for report, whose report is on the file. In the report, the S. H. O. has stated that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of some piece of land and that the dispute was likely to result in a breach of piece and there was every likelihood that some quarrel may take place on the spot. On the receipt of this report the Executive Magistrate passed an order directing the attachment of the property. He referred to the report of S. H. O. his order also. It has been argued before the learned Sessions judge as well as before me by the learned counsel Mr. Hagroo, that as the Magistrate has not in so many words stated in his order that on sport because of the dispute there was likelihood of breach of peace, the order as such was not in sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub -sec (1) of Sec 145 Cr. P. C. and as such needs to be quashed. As 1 have earlier said the order of the executive Magistrate does make a reference to the report of the S. H. O. concerned who in clear terms had reported there was some likelihood of breach of peace on the spot. Though the order of the Executive Magistrate does not use these words specifically but we have to read the order as a whole and when the order refers to the report of the S. H. O. the report of the S. H. O. becomes part of the order. The learned Executive Magistrate has relied on the report of the S. H. O. and passed the order of attachment. We need not stress that the Magistrate should have repeated and reproduced the words which had been used by the S. H. O. concerned on which report the learned Magistrate has relied. In my opinion, therefore, the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Baramulla is answered accordingly i. e. to say that the order of the Executive Magistrate was perfectly legal and contained all the requirements of S. 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The order of the Executive Magistrate is therefore maintained. It is directed that the file be sent direct to the Executive Magistrate Bandipora for further necessary action. He will, of course, keep in view the fact that the dispute even according to the petitioner, before him is only with regard to some piece of land only and not with regard to the whole of it and also it appears from the Intikhabi - girdawari the same pieces of land have been shown as Khushki. He will consider all these matters and then decide the matter in accordance with law.;

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