RANBIR SINGH Vs. DALBIR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
March 20,2002
RANBIR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
Dalbir Singh And Ors.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD AYUB KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-52] [REFERRED TO]KANSHI RAM VS. INDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
KUNTHUSAGAR OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-1-152] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD BIN SALAM VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2009-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
R THANKHUMA VS. MAJOR LALCHHUANLIANA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR VS. SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB CHAND VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
GULABCHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
C.M. IBRAHIM VS. KULANGARA VEETIL KOYA MOIDEEN KUTTY [LAWS(KER)-2007-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAT RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-462] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. PADMA AGARWAL AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-218] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA NADUVATHUL MUJAHIDEEN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-253] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
A.DHAVEETHU VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-263] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA GUPTA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA SINGH ALIAS SHIVAJI SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIKA SAHOO VS. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHOO [LAWS(ORI)-2002-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNA ANAND RAIKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
KALAIMANI VS. ANTHONISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-238] [REFERRED TO]
KALI RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2003-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTHA VS. TAHSILDAR & EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
A. SHANTHA VS. THE TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
KARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-455] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHA BAI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-10-151] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-1144] [REFERRED]
LAKHMIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
DES RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER AND OTHERS VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-610] [REFERRED]
M.D.N. PANICKER GENERAL SECRETARY, ROURKELA SHRAMIK SANGHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2010-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTAL KAUR @ KULWANT KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. NIRMAL KAUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2002-12-114] [REFERRED]
R. THANKHUMA VS. MAJOR LALCHHUANLIANA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
BANALA SUBHASHINI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUSAMY VS. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, COIMBATORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1680] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal filed by the first party in the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment dated 16-7-2001 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No.540 of 2000. The revision petition was filed by the second party, who is respondent No. 1, herein, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 14-11-2000 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. attaching the land in dispute. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and quashed the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 (1) as well as the order of attachment of the land under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
"This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that impugned orders under Section 145(1) of the Code as well as proceedings under Section146(1) of the Cr.P.C. were an abuse of the process of law and as such cannot be sustained. The orders passed by learned SDM under Section 145(1) dated 11-7-2000 as well as Section 146(1) dated 14-11-2000 are therefore quashed. The learned SDM is directed to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner within 10 days as he was in possession thereof at the time of the attachment. The trial Court file be sent back immediately."
(3.)The factual matrix of the case over which there is no dispute between the parties may be stated thus :
(2.)This appeal filed by the first party in the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment dated 16-7-2001 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision No.540 of 2000. The revision petition was filed by the second party, who is respondent No. 1, herein, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 14-11-2000 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. attaching the land in dispute. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition and quashed the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 (1) as well as the order of attachment of the land under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
"This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that impugned orders under Section 145(1) of the Code as well as proceedings under Section146(1) of the Cr.P.C. were an abuse of the process of law and as such cannot be sustained. The orders passed by learned SDM under Section 145(1) dated 11-7-2000 as well as Section 146(1) dated 14-11-2000 are therefore quashed. The learned SDM is directed to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner within 10 days as he was in possession thereof at the time of the attachment. The trial Court file be sent back immediately."
(3.)The factual matrix of the case over which there is no dispute between the parties may be stated thus :
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.