Decided on February 09,1999

SHYAM LAL Respondents


- (1.) THIS reference has been recommended by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 7th October, 1997 in proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. has been held to be unsustainable in law.
(2.) CIRCUMSTANCES which led to the execution of proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C were that petitioner filed an application under Section 145 Cr. P.C. claiming himself to be in possession of land comprising under Khasra No: 52 and 53 measuring 8 kanals and 4 marlas. Further case of the petitioner was that he had been cultivating the said land as a tenant and had been sowing as well as reaping the crop on it. In the month of June, 1993, to be precise on 16th June, 1993 when he went to irrigate the field, respondents threatened that in case he ventures into this exercise, he will be done to death. Prior to this, petitioner claims that Chackoo Ram -predecessor -in -interest of respondents 1 to 5, andKrishan Lal - respondent No. 6 had been successful in getting one kanal of land out of the aforementioned area when he was assured that necessary mutation of ownership under Section 4 & 8 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act would be got attested in his favour. Instead of doing the needful, petitioner was threatened by the respondents on 16th June, 1993 as aforesaid. Krishan Lal is stated to be serving in CID of the State and thus it was pleaded as an additional factor of threat being extended by the respondents. In this background proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C. and the trial Magistrate being satisfied that the matter is of imminent nature and unless immediate steps were taken, it is likely to lead to other complications, ordered attachment of the property in question and ordered that it will remain in the custody of supurdar. Parties are not at variance that during the proceedings of this case they filed number of affidavits in support of their respective pleas and led other documentary evidence. After conclusion of the case trial Magistrate rejected the application filed under Section 145 of the Cr. PC. and ordered the release of attached property in favour of respondents. This order came to be questioned before the revisional court below who has made the recommendation to this court holding that the order passed by the trial Magistrate is not sustainable in law.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and with their assistance record of the case has also been examined. Learned counsel appearing for respondents while opposing the recommendations made has forcefully urged that the trial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the parties during the course of proceedings before him and has thereafter come to a correct conclusion while dismissing the application of petitioner. In addition to this, it was pointed out by Mr. Gagan Basotra that the trial Magistrate was not required to make detailed and threadbare enquiry as also to deal with the evidence minutely, as the proceedings under Section 145 (supra) were preventive and summary in nature. Purpose of such proceedings as per learned counsel was only to ensure that the apprehension of breach of peace over possessions of the land as in the present case is avoided. According to learned counsel order passed by the Magistrate is always subject to the decision by a competent civil court where rights of the parties can be got adjudicated. On this basis Shri Basotra urged for rejecting the recommendations and consequently dismissing the revision petition.;

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