JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak, J.
1. Heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate with the assistance of Sri C.S. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sriram Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of this criminal misc. writ petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of the impugned orders dated 30.6.2003 and 25.4.2005 passed by the courts below in a case proceedings under Sections 145/146 Code of Criminal Procedure relating to certain plots situated in Village Oraha and Ballen within the limit of police station Atarra, district Banda.
3. The facts in brief of the case are that one Daangi inherited the land in dispute from his ancestors. Daangi died leaving three sons. The following Petitioner family branch tree will make the picture more clear:-
Daangi ___________________________________ | | | Ramma (D) Laxman (D) Shiv Darshan (D) | | | Shiv Prasad ____________ Raniya (Widow) | | Gorelal Chotey Lal (Petitioner) (Petitioner)
4. It is stated that after the death of Shiv Darshan, Smt. Raniya inherited his property and is in cultivatory possession, that the petitioners threatened and tried to harvest her paddy crops forcibly. In this regard, she made an application dated 9.11.1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to the S.D.O. Atarra. A report from Tehsildar was called for and after the receipt of report, the S.D.O. found that there was apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the crop/land and consequently he initiated proceedings under Section 145 and 146 of Code of Criminal Procedure and passed an order dated 20.11.1990 for the attachment of the crop standing therein. The two persons named Swaminath and Sunder were appointed the receivers of the crop in order to maintain the peace and a proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. were also initiated between the parties.
5. The petitioners filed objection and challenged the validity of the order of attachment with their say that Smt. Raniya/respondent No. 2 is not the widow of Shiv Darshan but she is dead and the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute. Both the parties led evidence in support of their claim and the learned S.D.O. going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Smt Raniya is the widow of Shiv Darshan. She is alive and she is in possession over the said land. The S.D.O. has further mentioned in his judgment dated 30.6.2003 that a fraud was played with the relevant revenue records by Laxman/the father of the petitioners to show that Raniya was dead. It may be relevant to mention in this very connection that by the order of the then District Magistrate relating to such fraud a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC was registered against the above-named Laxman to remove the controversy with regard to the survivalness of Smt. Raniya. An inquiry was also conducted by Sri Vijay Shanker Pandey, the Divisional Commissioner and he also came to the conclusion that Smt. Raniya is the widow of Shiv Darshan. She is alive and submitted his report on 4.9.1999. Smt. Raniya is a old widow, helpless and illiterate village woman. The petitioners made their possible efforts to dispossess her from the land in dispute. The evidence on record and the prevailing circumstance indicate that there was apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the land in dispute which mandate for the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 and 146 Cr. P.C. including the proceedings 107/116 Cr. P.C.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the S.D.O. concerned vide his order dated 30.6.2003 released the land/produce/amount in favour of Smt. Raniya and restored the possession of the attached land to her. Against this order, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision No. 151 of 2003 which was dismissed on merit on 25.4.2005.
7. The present writ petition has been filed against these orders already referred-to-above.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the following points :-
(a) that relating to the same land, the litigations between the parties were carried in the Consolidation Courts and certain proceedings in this regard are also pending therein.
(b) that on the application of the petitioners, the Consolidation Court has passed an order of maintenance of status quo and, therefore, the proceedings drawn under Section 145, 146 Cr. P.C. are not permissible under the law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following cases :-
1. Ram Sumer Mahantpuri v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC page 472.
2. Jhunnalal alias Devdas v. State of M.P. and Ors.
3. AIR 2000 SC 1504 Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Ors.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the present case and those of the cases referred-to-above are different. There is an evidence to the effect that the petitioners committed fraud and forged relevant records to show that Smt. Raniya was dead and a criminal case under the relevant panel section was registered against their father (Lakshman). Not only this but an inquiry regarding the survivalness of her was conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, who found that Smt. Raniya is alive and she is the widow of Shiv Darshan. It may be relevant to mention here that from the very beginning an effort was made on the side of the petitioners to remove the identity of the above named Raniya but they could not get success in their efforts and also tried to apply force to dispossess her, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 were drawn that was mandatory for the purpose of securing justice to helpless, illiterate and old widow lady and to maintain peace as well as to maintain the majesty of law, therefore, the orders dated 30.6.2003 and 25.4.2005 passed by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity and deserve to be confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed.
10. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.