- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Through present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , the applicants desired that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. drawn up in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1991 Panchanand Pandey v, Jagroop and others, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, district Chandauli, be quashed. There has been a further prayer for quashing an order recorded under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. whereby the concerned land was directed to be attached. It was urged that the police report on which action was taken as also the report of the Tehsildar did not speak of any breach of peace and as such the Magistrate lack the initial jurisdiction to drop the aforesaid proceedings. It was further contended that there had been an order by a civil court, confirmed by the High Court, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo as regard possession.
(2.) THE proceeding was drawn up on 22-12-97 under an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, and the preliminary order indicate that the Magistrate stood satisfied from the report of the Tehsildar dated 3-12-97 and the report from the Police Officer dated 16-1-97 that both the parties were disputing over possession or land in question and there was tension at the spot. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed both the parties by his order dated 22-12-97 to appear before him and to file their written statement in support of their possession over the land in question. On the same day the Magistrate recorded a further order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. indicating that he was satisfied that there was a tension between the parties at the spot over possession of the disputed land and both were trying to harvest the standing crops and an untoward incident was apprehended at any moment. Accordingly, he directed attachment of the land under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. and directed the concerned police station to place the land in custody of a third person not interested in the dispute. The report of the Tehsildar is at annexure No. 10 to the present application. It was indicated in the report that the application of Panchanand Pandey was sent for enquiry by the Tehsildar with a direction to make a report thereon. The report indicated that the parties litigated for the land before the consolidation authorities and the tehsildar found that the land in question was used to be cultivated by Panchanand and others and upon that land again the opposite parties brought cast seeds forcible. Both the parties used to quarrel at the time of the harvesting. The Tehsildar reported that police be deputed to stop illegal harvest and proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. be drawn up.
(3.) THERE had been a police report as well where also long standing litigation between the parties were indicated on one side a group of Harijan were claiming the land on the basis of patta given by the Government and on the other side a non-Harijan was claiming the land. Police report indicates that the parties were directed to maintain status quo and to get the dispute resolved through court and the parties agreed to it. Police kept special watch on the situation but observed that there was no necessity of any police action as the dispute was at least 20years old. On presentation of this application an order was recorded on 17-2-98 in presence of both the parties and a date for submission of counter-affidavit was fixed. It was further ordered that if any standing crop was there on the land it would not be harvested within next ten days. The matter was fixed on 24-2-98 but was left out and no order regarding the crop was passed and since thereafter several adjournments were granted. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents and the matter was heard on 7- 9-98. It was indicated that interim order if in operation would stand extended till the date of the judgment.;