Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10329 of 2004 Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.N.Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of petitioner even in the revised list/call. The writ petition is being decided on merit in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This writ petition has been preferred against judgment and order dated 1.9.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C. V, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 259 of 2003 dismissing the revision and upholding the judgment and order dated 25.4.2003, passed by S.D.M., Mariahu in Criminal Case No. 51, whereby application moved by petitioner under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for impleadment was rejected.
The petition has been filed on the grounds the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against the evidence available on record.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of record, it appears that one Ram Nandan executed a will deed in the year 1989 in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7, namely, Moti Lal and Teerath Raj in respect of his whole property; in the year 1999 Ram Nandan executed his second will deed in favour of his grand sons i.e. Bhola Nath, Shambhu Nath, Motil Lal and Teerath Raj; by said will deed dated 25.10.1999 Ram Nandan relinquished his previous will deed dated 3.5.1989; proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of the property in question on the basis of the application filed by Ram Siromani (respondent no. 4); Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed an order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2000 in Criminal Case No. 51; in the same proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., petitioner moved an application for impleadment on the basis of aforesaid will deed dated 25.10.1999; thereafter respondent no. 6 Moti Lal filed his objection; Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 25.4.2003 rejected the petitioner's application stating that it is highly delayed; against the order dated 25.4.2003 petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 259 of 2003 which was dismissed on 1.9.2004. Hence, this petition.
According to Section 145 Cr.P.C. it is very clear that if there is dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, the Magistrate on the basis of evidence may pass an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. about the property in dispute. It is also settled law that under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., the Court has no power to decide the title or adjudicate on the point of title.
In such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 NS