J.M.L. Sinha, J. - (1.) THESE two references and the three revisions arise out of cases Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and raise almost identical questions for consideration. In Cr. Ref. No. 509 of 1968, the facts are as follows: S.I. Police Station Chilhia submitted a report dated 18 -11 -1967, that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace existed between two sets of persons named therein. On the basis of that report, a preliminary order Under Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure was passed by the Magistrate directing the parties concerned to attend the court on 18 -12 -1967, to put in written statement of their respective claims and to put in such documents in evidence as they may rely upon. Both the sets appeared before the Magistrate, filed their written statements and affidavits. The Magistrate, being unable to arrive at a conclusion on the point of possession, made a reference to the civil court vide his order dated 6 -2 -1968. Against that order, one set of persons, viz. Kalap Deen, Pashupati Nath and Ram Lakhan, went up in revision before the Sessions Judge and the main ground taken in the revision was that a revenue case Under Section 229 of UP ZA and LR Act was pending in the court of J.O., Naugarh and in that view of the matter, the proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure should have been dropped. The Addl. Sessions Judge placing reliance on the case Sohan Lal v. State, 1967 AWR 550 held that since a revenue suit was pending between the parties, resort should not have been made to proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, made a reference to this Court for the proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure being quashed. The criminal reference came up for decision before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He was of the view that there was some conflict in the various decisions and consequently, directed that the papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for decision of the case. The reference has, accordingly, been sent to us for disposal.
(2.) IN Cr. Revision No. 1164 of 1968, the facts are as follows: Mahadeo and others filed an application along with an affidavit before S.D.M., Naraini, district Banda, stating that there was an apprehension of breach of peace in respect of possession over plot No. 9522. A preliminary order was passed on the basis of this application by the learned SDM on 8 -3 -1968. Raghubir, who was opposite party in the application, filed an objection before the learned SDM on 13 -5 -1968 contending that a regular suit Under Section 229 of the UP ZA and LR Act was pending in the court of Assistant Collector since before the filing of the application Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure should, therefore, be stayed. This application was rejected by the learned SDM the same day. Raghubir then filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 15 -6 -1968. Against that decision, Raghubir came in revision before this Court and by an order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it was directed that this revision may also be decided by the Bench together with Cr. Reference No. 509 of 1968. The facts in Cr. Revision No. 2390 of 1968 are as follows: On a report submitted by the police, proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by a Magistrate 1st Class, Dehradun. One of the opposite parties moved an application before the Magistrate that since a civil suit relating to the same land was pending, the proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure be dropped. An express reference was made in the application to the case Sohan Lal and Anr. v. State (supra). The application was rejected by the Magistrate. A revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which revision also ended in dismissal. Uma Shanker then came up in revision before this Hon'ble Court. This revision has been admitted and has been sent to us for disposal.
(3.) THE facts in Cr. Reference No. 555 of 1968 are as follows: On the report of S.O. Vindhayachal dated 22 -3 -1968, proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by SDM, Sadar, Mirzapur. During the pendency of the case, one of the parties, inter alia, filed certified copy of a judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) passed an order in favour of the party in whose favour the judgment of the Settlement Officer. (Consolidation) stood and restrained the other party from interfering in the peaceful possession of that party. Against the order of the SDM, the aggrieved party filed a revision before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge agreeing with the contentions raised before him referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to record a finding Under Section 145(5), Code of Criminal Procedure on the question of the existence of the breach -of peace. The reference came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court who directed that in view of there being conflicting authorities, the papers may be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the reference. The case has, accordingly, been referred to us for disposal.;