SADHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by Sri. Raghubar Dayal, Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. III Jamshedpur by which the petition of the Petitioner filed under Section 146(1) which was rejected by Sri. B. Maheshwari Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 873 of 1999 was affirmed and Cr. Rev. No. 111 of 2008 was rejected.

(2.) The brief fact of the case was that on the basis of the written report of Sunil Pal (now deceased) i.e. the brother of the present Petitioner, a proceeding under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against the O.P. No. 2 by the order of the SDM, Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc Case No. 873 of 1999. The proceeding in question was related to weighing-bridge which was installed by the O.P. No. 2 in front of the shop of the Petitioner bearing shop No. 30/CI situated at Muri Line, Sakchi and it was stated that the said land was purchased by one Sudhir Lal i.e. father of the Petitioner on 18.3.1995 from one Kalipada Gope against the consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. It was alleged that the O.P. No. 2 attempted several times to grab the land of the Petitioner as he was having similar trade therefore, the business rivalry resulted into long drawn enmity, as such cases and counter cases were initiated against each other. A proceeding under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure was converted into one under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A title suit was also filed against the O.P. No. 2 by the Petitioner in the court of Munsif, Jamshedpur Vide T.S. No. 11 of 2008 and during pendency of the proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 146(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for appointment of receiver which was refused by the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned Sr.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dismissed the criminal revision observing that the learned Executive Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction that there was no emergency for attachment of the property and that the revisional court did not find illegality or irregularity in the order impugned