Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 741 (PAT)

Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

1999-08-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body1999
Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application under Section 482, Cr PC the petitioner has challenged the initiation of a proceeding and prayed for quashing the said proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC being Misc. Case No. 1162-A of 1997 pending in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur. 2. The petitioners case in nut-shell is that in 1976 a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was initiated at the instance of opposite party No. 2 in respect of plot Nos. 1931, 1939 and 2095. In that proceeding the opposite party No. 2 claimed to have title and possession in respect of the aforementioned plots that the proceeding was decided by the Executive Magistrate in favour of the opposite party No. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that against the said order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 26/82 which was decided in favour of the petitioner by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in terms of the judgment and order dated 6.9.1989. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate. It is stated that the opposite party No. 2 filed Criminal Revision before this Court being Cr. Rev. No. 252/89(R) which was dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that second proceeding at the instance of the opposite party No. 2 in respect of the aforementioned plots besides other plots is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, the case of the opposite party is that in the earlier proceeding the possession of the opposite party was declared by the Executive Magistrate and the representation filed by the petitioner was allowed on technical ground that there was vagueness in the description of the property. It is stated that since after the disposal of the criminal revision the petitioner again tried to forcefully dispossess the opposite party from the plots in question, a petition was filed for initiation of a proceeding against the petitioner under Section 144, Cr PC. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made two fould submissions. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that a second proceeding under Sections 144/145, Cr PC in respect of the same property is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, in the earlier proceeding the disputed plots were plot Nos. 1931, 1939 and 2095 and the said proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that a second proceeding under Sections 144/145, Cr PC in respect of the same property is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, in the earlier proceeding the disputed plots were plot Nos. 1931, 1939 and 2095 and the said proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioner. In the instant proceeding also the aforesaid three plots have been included by the opposite party No. 2. Learned Counsel secondly submitted that in the police report there is no mention about the apprehension of breach of peace with respect to the plots in question and therefore, initiation of proceeding itself is bad in law. 5. I will first take up the point raised by the learned Counsel with regard to maintainability of the proceeding in respect of the same plots. It appears that in the earlier proceedings the aforementioned three plots were in dispute. The Executive Magistrate decided the earlier proceeding in favour of the opposite party No. 2 declaring his possession over the said plots. The petitioner filed criminal revision No. 26/82 which was allowed by the Sessions Judge. A copy of the said order is An-nexure 1 to the instant application. It transpires from the order that before the revisional Court the petitioner assailed the order of the Executive Magistrate mainly on the ground of vagueness of the disputed land. The contention of the petitioner was that there was no exact and definite location of the disputed land and the identity of the property was also not clearly mentioned. The learned Sessions Judge, holding that there was vagueness of the disputed land, allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate. The said order was affirmed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 252/89(R). The question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether a second proceeding under Section 144 is maintainable when the earlier proceeding is dismissed on the ground of vagueness of the disputed property. In my opinion, the answer would be in affirmative. As noticed above, although the Executive Magistrate decided the earlier proceeding on merit by declaring possession of the opposite party but the revisional Court has not gone into the merit of the finding of the Executive Magistrate and allowed the revision petition on the ground vagueness. In that view of the matter also the instant proceeding is maintainable. 6. As noticed above, although the Executive Magistrate decided the earlier proceeding on merit by declaring possession of the opposite party but the revisional Court has not gone into the merit of the finding of the Executive Magistrate and allowed the revision petition on the ground vagueness. In that view of the matter also the instant proceeding is maintainable. 6. It is well-settled that if the earlier proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC is dropped on the ground that there was no specific details of the disputed land then a fresh proceeding is maintainable in respect of the same property. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Kripal Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 25. So far the second point raised by Mr. Banerjee that in absence of any finding in the police report about the existence of breach of peace the proceeding under Section 145 is not maintainable, I do not find much force in the submission of the learned Counsel. It is well-settled that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 145(1), Cr PC is the satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding the existence of apprehension of breach of peace concerning from some land and not stating the grounds of his such satisfaction in the order drawing of the proceeding. From perusal of the application filed by the opposite party No. 2, it appears that in para 9 and 10 of the said petition it has been categorically stated that after disposal of the earlier criminal revision the security staff of the petitioner have been seriously attempting to dispossess the applicant from the disputed land and to cause damage to the property. It is further stated that one day before filing of the application the security staff of the petitioner, company came on two jeeps and asked the opposite party to surrender the entire disputed land to the company and threatened that if the applicant would fail to do so the applicant and his family members will be forcibly dispossessed from the same. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about the existence of apprehension of breach of peace and drew the instant proceeding. In my opinion, this Court is not supposed to scrutinise the entire material for coming to a different conclusion. 7. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction about the existence of apprehension of breach of peace and drew the instant proceeding. In my opinion, this Court is not supposed to scrutinise the entire material for coming to a different conclusion. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that initiation of a proceeding by the Magistrate needs no interference by this Court. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.