GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under S.482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners challenge the legality of the orders passed by the two Courts below in a proceeding under S.145, Cr.P.C., and pray for quashing the same.

(2.) Briefly recalled, the facts giving rise to this application are that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sheoganj, submitted a report in writing before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Sirohi stating therein that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace between the revision-petitioners and the opposite party Sama and others (twenty three in all) existed over some agricultural fields situate in Mauja Chuli. A prayer was made therein to initiate a proceeding under S.145, Cr.P.C. It was further prayed that the case was one of emergency and as such the fields in dispute may be attached under S.146(1), Cr.P.C. The Executive Magistrate thereupon passed the impugned order on 1-11-1983, by which he attached the subject matter of dispute, appointed the Tehsildar as Receiver and issued notices to the parties concerned to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the fields in dispute. The revision-petitioners challenged this order of the Executive Magistrate in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. It was contended before him by the revision-petitioners that since no preliminary order under S.145(1) was passed by the Executive Magistrate, the whole proceeding stands vitiated and the order of attachment is bad in law. It was argued that the order of attachment under S.145(1), could not be passed without first passing a preliminary order under S.145(1), Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge repelled the contentions of the revision-petitioners and upheld the order of the Executive Magistrate. Aggrieved against the said two orders of the Courts below, the revision-petitioners, by this application under S.482, Cr.P.C., invoke the inherent powers of this Court and pray for quashing the aforesaid orders.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The other non-petitioners, despite service of notices, did not put appearance. I have also gone through both the impugned orders.