Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1380 of 2015 Revisionist :- Smt. Kalindi @ Kalindi Malviya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :-
Govt.Advocate,A.B.N.Tripathi,A.N.Srivastava,Narendra Pratap Kushwaha,Sandeep Kumar
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri A.B.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushinagar in Case No. 91 of 2013 (Anil v. Kalindi) under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), Police Station - Ramkola, District - Kushinagar, whereby learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate observed that in revenue records, the names of Anil Kumar, Arun Kumar and Ajay Kumar are recorded and they have legal authority on land in dispute.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that learned Magistrate, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has determined the ownership and title on the disputed property. He may only determine the possession of the parties. But he admitted this fact that in reference to the disputed property, civil suit has been decided by Civil Judge, Senior Division. Against that civil suit, appeal has been preferred, which appeal has also been decided by the District Judge.
Learned counsel for opposite party admitted this fact that Second Appeal No. 1140 of 2003 (Ramadhar Upadhyay and others v. Anil Kumar and others) is pending before this Court.
As the matter is already pending and subjudice before the civil court and the appeal is pending before this Court, learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
As per provision of Section 145(6) Cr.P.C., the magistrate can only determine the possession of parties on the date of order passed by him under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had determined the title of the party, which is against law.
Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. Order passed by court below is set aside.
Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 I. Batabyal