Ashim Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) THE subject matter of challenge, in this criminal revision, is an order passed in connection with a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Sessions Court and lost there. Hence, this criminal revision.
(2.) TO start with, the order impugned is quoted below: - "Ld. Adv. of the F/P appeared & perused the petition. Perused o/c p/pm & BL & LRO O/PM are to submit PR & BR by not dt. of hearing. Meanwhile O/C P/PM is directed to maintain peace over the suit land & both parties are hereby restrained to cultivate over the suit land." It is the case of the petitioner that he is a patta -holder of the land in question. Therefore, not only, he has every right of access to the said land but also to cultivate the same. However, because of the order impugned, he has been denied of such right and no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing such order. It is contended that this is a case of clear violation of principle of natural justice.
(3.) HAVING regard to the order impugned, I find the same was absolutely interlocutory in nature. Both the parties have been restrained to cultivate the land to maintain the peace in the locality. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said by the impugned order, while the petitioner's right has been adversely affected, the opposite party has been benefited by virtue thereof. The petitioner without availing his remedy under sub -section (5) of Section 144 Cr.P.C., moved the Sessions Court and failing there, has come before this High Court.;