Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1340 (ALL)

DEONATH RAM v. STATE OF U P

2000-10-18

KRISHNA KUMAR

body2000
KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24-5-1995 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur whereby the order 16-1-1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was set aside in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. 2. In brief the facts of the present case are that a preliminary order was passed by the SDM in proceedings under Section 1-45, Cr. P. C and against the said preliminary order dated 16-1-1993 revision was filed which was allowed vide order dated 24-5-1995 and the impugned order dated 16-1-1993 was set aside and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C were quashed. Being aggrieved by the said order this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge wrongly held that earlier proceedings under Section 145, Crpc had started in respect of the same plots. It was argued that plots in the second proceedings were totally different and fur ther the order of the earlier proceedings was not filed before the Magistrate and was filed for the first time before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The question as to whether the order of the earlier proceedings was filed or not is quite irrelevant beqause when the earlier proceedings were already started by the complainant, he must have the knowledge that he had filed proceedings under Section 145, Crpc earlier also. As far as the plots number is concerned, it is quite clear from perusal of the judgment that the plots in the earlier proceedings correspond with the plots mentioned in the subsequent proceedings. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was mentioned the plots number as 85, 85-M and 113 and also mentioned their areas. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also perused the file of the case No. 3/1993 as well as its revision No. 648/405 of the DDC, Ghazipur. Certain documents were also filed by the parties at the stage of revisionwhichwereadmitted. Certified copy of the judgment of earlier proceedings was also filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge compared old plots and new plots on the basis of certified copy of the CH Form No. 41 and had come to the conclusion that the disputed plots were the same about which earlier proceedings under Section 145, Crpc were drawn. Certified copy of the judgment of earlier proceedings was also filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge compared old plots and new plots on the basis of certified copy of the CH Form No. 41 and had come to the conclusion that the disputed plots were the same about which earlier proceedings under Section 145, Crpc were drawn. It was also held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the order passed in the earlier proceedings had become final. Relying upon the case law, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that no fresh proceedings could be entertained unless the competent Civil Court decides the controversy. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the order of first proceedings was filed for the first time in the revisional Court, has no force because before the learned Additional Sessions Judge preliminary order was challenged and for the first time the paper could be filed before the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly upheld that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the preliminary order dated 16-1-1993. 9. In view of what has been indicated, herein above there is no force in this revision. It is accordingly disrflissed. Revision dismissed.