- (1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 5th, Deoghar in Crimina! Revision No. 20 of 2005 whereby and where -under, the learned Court below has set aside the order dated 25.1.2005 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur in Cri. Misc. Case No. 01 of 2005 under which a proceeding under Section 145(1) Cr.PC was initiated and notices were issued to the party concerned for appearing and filing written statement. A further prayer has been made for restoring the order dated 25.01.2005 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur in the said Cri. Misc. Case No. 01 of 2005. The main ground advanced in support of the prayer is that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and without considering the fact that the impugned order against which the Cri. Revision was preferred by the opposite party, was in itself an interlocutory order and being revis -able under Section 397 Cr.PC. The further ground is that the learned Court below has erred in failing to consider that the proceeding initiated under Section 145(1) Cr. PC cannot be dropped otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of sub -section 5 of Section 145 Cr.PC. A further ground is taken by the petitioner is that the learned Court below ought to have considered that Sub -Divisional Magistrate had felt satisfied for need to initiate proceeding under Section 145 Cr. PC on the basis of the emergent situation and immediate threat of breach of peace on account of the dispute over possession of the disputed lands between the parties.
(2.) THE lands in dispute situated at Mouza Rangatanr, comprises of two different plots. The first one appertains to Jamabandi No. 38 which was recorded as 'Bakast' land, while the other appertains to Jamabandi No. 39, was recorded as 'Kamath' land in survey settlement operation. Both the above lands measuring total area of 175 acres (approx) was recorded in the name of ex -landlord Ghatwal Sant Prasad Singh in the last survey settlement. The petitioner's claim is that in the year 1934 ex -landlord had allowed the petitioner's predecessor to cultivate 'Bakast' land by way of oral settlement and since thereafter, the petitioners' predecessor in interest followed by the petitioner, have been coming in peaceful cultivating possession of the said lands since more than 70 years. The opposite party members are the descendants of the erstwhile landlord and they have been allegedly obstructing the peaceful possession of the petitioner. On 2.5.2000 petitioner along with 17 others had filed a misc. petition vide M.P. Case No. 657 of 2000 before the Settlement Officer, Dumka for recording the land as raiyat holding in favour of the petitioner. The case was transferred for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, to the Charge Officer, Dumka. While this was so, a report was submitted by the Officer - in -charge of the concerned Police Station on 26.6.2000 to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur apprehending serious breach of peace between Madan Prasad Singh (one of the descendants of the ex - landlord) and the local villagers over possession of the land pertaining to Jamabandi Nos. 38 and 39 of Mouza Rangatanr. A proceeding under Section 107/116 (iii) Cr. PC was initiated by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on the basis of the aforesaid police report. Almost simultaneously, a report was called for by the Sub -Divisional Officer from the Circle Officer, Paljori asking him to produce Regis -ter -ll of the lands appertaining to details of Jamabandi Nos. 38 and 39 and in response thereto, a detailed report was submitted by the Circle Inspector. After considering all the materials produced before him, the Sub -Divi - sional Officer vide order dated 4.7.2000 had declared the right of the ex -landlord over the lands and directed the officer -in -charge of the concerned Police Station to provide administrative assistance to the descendants of the ex -landlord for cultivating the land. Thereafter, petitioner and 31 others challenged the aforesaid order of the Sub -Divisional Officer before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide R.M.A Case No. 38 of 2000 -2001. The appellant Court after hearing the parties, had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 27.6.2001 upholding the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer. Petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide R.M. Revision No. 97 of 2002 -2003. The Commissioner vide his order dated 15.7.2003, had also dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner as being without merit. The petitioner thereafter, filed writ application before this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 4062 of 2004 and vide order dated 27.8.2004 passed by this Court, a direction was issued to maintain status quo till further orders. Subsequently, by order dated 6.11.2004 the Sub - Divisional Officer, Madhupur issued a direction to the police to extend administrative help to the opposite parties in respect to the disputed land. The petitioner's prayer for recalling the order was refused by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 30.11.2004. On the communication of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur directed the Circle Officer to seize the paddy crops standing over the land on the basis of the orders passed by the High Court dated 27.8.2004 in the aforementioned W.P. (C) No. 4062 of 2004. The opposite parties thereafter approached this Court vide same writ application and vide order dated 21.12.2004 it was directed that the paddy crops shall be released in favour of the cultivator. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Paljori submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur stating therein that there is chance of bloodshed from both the sides in harvesting of the standing paddy crops. On the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur by his order dated 25.1.2005, initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC by issuing notices to both the parties to appear and submit their respective written statement. Against the aforesaid order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, opposite parties preferred criminal revision application vide Cri. Revision No. 20 of 2005 before the learned Sessions Judge which was eventually disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -5, Deoghar by his order impugned. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner had taken the ground that the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate was an interlocutory order and was not amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr. PC and that the proceeding was initiated by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate after being satisfied that there exists serious breach of peace between the parties and once proceeding has been initiated, that could not be dropped other than under the provisions of Section 145(5) Cr. PC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties, has observed that the impugned order of the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.PC cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and that the order impugned of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur was contrary to the finding recorded by him in the previous report, wherein the same officer had declared after elaborate inquiry, that he had found the opposite party in cultivating possession of the disputed land. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that earlier, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate had issued direction pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court for releasing the harvested paddy crops to the persons who had cultivated the land and when the Sub -Divisional Magistrate had himself found in the inquiry conducted by him that the opposite parties who were the actual cultivator, were in the possession of the land, it was the duty of the administration to provide protection to the person concerned in the matter of releasing the harvested paddy, but instead, in the face of the stiff resistance offered by the petitioner and other persons, the police as well as concerned administration had retreated and had virtually abdicated in their responsibility. The learned Court below has further observed that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate has passed the order by initiating proceeding under Section 145 Cr. PC, only as a measure of escape from its responsibility. The learned Court below has further observed that for deciding the dispute between the parties, a proceeding is already pending before the Settlement Officer who is competent authority under the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and as such, proceeding under Section 145 Cr. PC for the purpose of deciding the issue of possession of the land was totally uncalled for. On the basis of the above observations and findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the revision filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner has filed the present application for quashing.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the peti -tioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.;