GIRWAR DAN Vs. RAM PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (FROM: JAIPUR)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This criminal revision has been filed by Girwar Dan Laxman Dan and Girdhar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the party No.1') against non-petitioner Ram Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'the party No.2') challenging the order of learned Sessions Judge Tonk dated 16th Aug. 1982, whereby he set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malpura, dated 24th July, 1982.
(2.)Brief facts leading to this revision are that the party No.1 submitted an application under Ss.145 and 146 Cr.P.C. against party No.2 on 16th July, 1982, on the allegations that one Mst. Bhoori had sold agricultural land measuring 29 Bighas 8 Biswas in village Rajpura Tan Tordi Tehsil Malpura in favour of the party No.1 and also handed over actual possession over the land in question. Subsequently, party No.2 and Mst. Bhoori collusively wanted to dispossess the party No.1. On July 15, 1982, they tried to dispossess the party No.1 by force and on that account there was a danger as to breach of peace. It was, therefore, prayed that possession of party No.1 be declared over the land in question and the same be attached and a receiver be appointed so that peace may not be disturbed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent the complaint to the police for investigation. The Station House Officer Police Station, Malpura, recorded statement of the witnesses of both the parties and sent a report that there was imminent danger of breach of peace and life of both the parties was in danger and the Station House Officer prayed that it was a case of emergency and action should be taken under S.146 Cr.P.C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate after perusing the report of the police passed an order on 24th July, 1982 attaching the land in dispute under S.146(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate appointed Tehsildar, Malpura, as receiver to take immediate possession of the land in question.
(3.)The opposite party No.2 aggrieved against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 16th Aug. 1982, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate attaching the property under S.146(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass a composite order under S.145(1) as well as S.146(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the matter on merits and left it for fresh determination by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.