Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 661 of 1996 Revisionist :- Dan Bahadur And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.B.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
None appears to press this Revision. Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
O.P. Nos. 3 to 6 were issued notices vide this Court's order dated 15.07.1996 but the same has not returned and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are being represented by learned A.G.A.
This Revision is of the year 1996 and looking to the fact that this is very old matter, hence, it is being disposed of on merits in absence of the parties.
This Revision has been preferred against the order dated 14.02.1996 and 26.03.1996 passed by 'Up Jiladhikari, Handia, Allahabad' in proceeding under Section 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C. in Case No. 32 of 1995-96, Shyam Narain Vs. Dharmraj. It is prayed that the impugned orders be set-aside and the proceedings in the said case be quashed.
When this Revision was filed, at the initial stage on 2.05.1996, conditional order was passed by this Court to the effect that the attachment order be not given effect to, if the property has not already been attached.
The grounds in Revision are that after notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, O.P. No.2 had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings, as the parties were seeking redressal of their grievance before Consolidation Court, hence the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. must be dropped. The dispute with respect to the same land is pending before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, hence there is no reason to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is further mentioned that after obtaining a sale-deed from the tenure holder, the revisionists were continuing in possession over the disputed land and have sown crops on the said land but somehow the respondents are harassing the revisionist as they did not get any success before Civil Court and the Consolidation Authorities, hence, they have initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which is not maintainable.
By the impugned order dated 26.03.1996 on the basis of report of S.H.O., Handia dated 24.03.1996 and after having perused the documentary evidence provided before it, notices were issued to both the sides under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. on 25.09.1995 and, thereafter, on 14.02.1996, an order was passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. for attaching the crop existing on the disputed land and the said order was given for execution to S.H.O., Handia. It is also mentioned that as per report of S.H.O., Handia dated 24.03.1996, position on the spot was full of tension, therefore, there was full likelihood of breach of peace and, therefore in these circumstances, the order passed by the earlier Presiding Officer under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. dated 24.02.1996 did not require to be amended and, hence, S.H.O., Handia was directed that under the said order dated 14.02.1996, the disputed land along with crop standing there on should be attached in presence of both the parties and should be given in supurdagi of an independent person and report of the same be transmitted to Court on 29.03.1996. It is not clear as to whether the property has been attached or not so far. The initial order of this Court dated 2.05.1996 also had directed that if the property had not already been attached, the same be not attached, therefore, as on date it is not clear from perusal of the record as to whether the property in dispute stands attached or in possession of which party or whether it is lying in supurdagi of some independent person as per order dated 26.03.1996 of Up Zila Magistrate, Handia.
As per version of revisionist that there is a civil case pending between two sides and in these circumstances, there was no need for the trial court to proceed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. I am of the view that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are meant to be resorted to when there is apprehension of breach of peace between two sides. The magisterial court which passes order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not have jurisdiction to decide ownership of the parties which would be decided by the Civil Court where the proceedings are stated to be pending, therefore, keeping in view, the position of law if the Magistrate finds there is apprehension of breach of peace, he may proceed under the above- mentioned sections, however, the possession of the property would be handed over to the party which establishes its title over the disputed land before the Civil Suit, therefore, in view of the above position, this Revision is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court and interim order dated 2.05.1996 stands vacated.
Let the file be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A. Mandhani