BADAL GOMES Vs. MARTIN ARINDA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-17
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 04,1996

BADAL GOMES Appellant
VERSUS
MARTIN ARINDA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM SUMER PURI MAHANT VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [RELIED UPON]



Cited Judgements :-

NARESH ALIAS NARAYAN MURLIDHAR KABRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14-1-92 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia, in M. P. Case No. 25 of 1992 in Misc. Case No. 6(III) of 1992, arising upon an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of one Maretina Arina, first party in that petition against the second party Badal Gomes alleging, inter alia, that the second party member by depositing brick and sand upon the passage located on the 20 decimals of land in plot no. 670 caused inconvenience to the first party. The police report was called for and thereafter a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up and certain orders were passed by the learned Magistrate. Even thereafter it was alleged that the second party members were trying to raise construction on that land which was a vacant one and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 14th January, 1992 drew up a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon the police report showing that there was apprehension of breach of the peace and forbade both parties from entering upon the land and he also by that order drew up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and in exercise of his power under Section 146(1) of that Code appointed a Receiver. That order has not been challenged in revision before the first revisional Court. The first party again made a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging that the second party members were trying to construct on the suit land in spite of the order of restraint passed by the order dated 14-1-92. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate directed sending of copy of the petition to the Pradhan, Barasat, G. P., the Receiver appointed by the learned Magistrate, with the direction upon the Receiver to submit a report immediately. The order dated 12-6-95 was the subject-matter of revision before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagore, Nadia, in Criminal Motion No. 7, 1995. The revision was filed sometime in January, 1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 12-6-95 in that revision dismissed the revisional application of Badal Gomes, the member of the second party, on two grounds, the first ground he found that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to draw up a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and in the second ground he found that the revision had been moved against an interlocutory order. In this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the said Badal Gomes challenged that revisional order and also the order of the learned Magistrate dated 14-1-92 passed in M. P. Case No. 25 of 1992, Misc. Case No. 6(III) of 1992.
(2.)Mr. Subroto Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended only one point that both the civil suit and criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot go together. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P., reported in, AIR 1985 SC 472 (1985 Cri .LJ 752).
(3.)Mr. Sunirmal Nag, learned Advocate for the opposite party No.1 submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case as the report of the Receiver went against the second party, the second party moved the revision and that the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) has no bearing on this case.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.