Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 10 (JHR)

Savitri Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2006-01-03

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. No body appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 3. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by Smt. M.J. Tigga, learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh in Case No. M. 369 of 1991 arising out T.R. No. 317 of 2003 directing the parties to produce their evidences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 1994 filed before learned Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh, is pending between the parties with regard to the land in question; and therefore the proceeding under Section 144/ 145 of Cr.P.C. continuing since 1991, is meaningless. 4. Opposing such submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that this Court has already decided the matter vide order dated 23.6.2000 in Cr. Misc. No. 7662 of 1999 (R) (Annexure-1). He further submitted that pendency of a suit, which was filed after initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is no ground for dropping such proceedings. He relied on judgment reported in 1992 (1) BLJ 522 [1991 (2) PLJR 552] (Smt. Kalindi Devi vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) He further submitted that the property was attached and receiver was appointed in the said proceeding on 20.9.1993, which was challenged by the petitioner, but this Court did not interfere with such order; and that if this proceeding is dropped, peace may be disturbed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the petitioner appeared in the proceedings in question in the year 1997, i.e. much after filing of the suit, on the basis of the order passed by this Court. Moreover, in the proceeding in question the evidences were already closed and, therefore, in any event, the learned Magistrate should not have ordered for producing the witnesses afresh. 6. Be that as it may. There is nothing to show that apprehension of breach of peace exists between the parties. This proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was started in the year 1991; which was converted under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. on 10.1.1992. 6. Be that as it may. There is nothing to show that apprehension of breach of peace exists between the parties. This proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was started in the year 1991; which was converted under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. on 10.1.1992. When the parties are before the civil court, it is expected that they will not disturb peace, and will take recourse to the remedies available to them under the law, before the civil court. 7. In the case of Smt. Kalindi Devi (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Patna High Court distinguished the other judgment of Patna High Court, reported in 1986 BBCJ 678 (Kamleshwari Rai and others vs. Keshav Raj and others), on the ground that apprehension of breach of peace existed between the parties. In Kamleshwari Rai's case, the following observations were made: "Such a case which remained pending for seventeen years, it may be termed as stale and in this view of the matter, interference is only warranted if there be such compelling and extraordinary situation. It is never permissible to allow such proceedings to prolong mechanically without any valid reason and if that is allowed, certainly complications will arise leading to the denial of right and possession of a true possessor and owner." 8. In my opinion, continuance of this proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is not in the interest of justice, and it should be dropped. However, no observation made in the said proceedings will prejudice the parties before the civil court. It goes without saying that the parties may seek their remedies available to them under the law before the civil court. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 25.11.2003 in Case No. M. 369 of 1991 passed by Smt. M.J. Tigga, learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh and the whole proceeding is quashed.