Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 579 (GAU)

Satish Kumar Beria v. Ajay Kumar Dev

2006-06-19

I.A.ANSARI

body2006
1. Heard Mr. S, Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr, D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This revision is directed against the order, dated 13.3.2002, passed, in Case No. 72/2002, under section 145, Cr.PC, by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dibrugarh, drawing proceeding under section 145 of the Cr.PC in respect of the disputed land and also placing the land under attachment. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition may, in brief, set out as follows: A complaint was lodged, on 6.3.2002, with Khowang Police Station, by the opposite party herein alleging that because of his illness, he had remained under treatment at Shristi Hospital, Dibrugarh, since 28.2.2002 and, on 6.3.2002, when he came home, he found that the second party herein had unauthorizedly occupied the land mentioned in the schedule of the said complaint and constructed a house thereon. Following this complaint, Non-FiR Case-No. 4/2002 was registered at the Khowang Police Station and, upon making enquiry into the said complaint, police submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate, Dibrugarh, informing the learned Magistrate about the complaint lodged by the present petitioner and also stating therein that a quarrel between the parties, in respect of the disputed land, had given rise to apprehension of breach of the peace in the locality and sought for drawing of a proceeding under section 107/145, CrPC. Based on the complaint and the police report aforementioned, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, dated 13.3.2002, aforementioned. 4. While considering the present revision petition, what needs to be noted is that a private dispute over possession of land is not amenable to section 145, Cr.PC. Unless there is apprehension-of breach of the public peace or disturbance of the even tempo of the inhabitants of the locality concerned, a proceeding under section 145, Cr.PC cannot be initiated. In the case at hand, the complaint reveals a simple case of dispute between the two parties over a specified plot of land. Neither in the complaint nor in the police report, there is any indication that anyone, other than the party to the dispute, had any interest in the dispute any or that the people, in general, of the locality were involved in the dispute. In such circumstances, the provisions of 145, Cr.PC were not attracted. Neither in the complaint nor in the police report, there is any indication that anyone, other than the party to the dispute, had any interest in the dispute any or that the people, in general, of the locality were involved in the dispute. In such circumstances, the provisions of 145, Cr.PC were not attracted. Considered, thus, it is abundantly clear that the impugned order, dated 13.3.2002, drawing proceeding under section 145, Cr.PC in respect of the disputed land between the parties and placing the land under attachment were wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to survive. 5. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision succeeds. The impugned order, dated 13.3.2002, is hereby set aside. The disputed land shall, if already placed under attachment, stand released and the learned court below shall pass appropriate directions, in this regard, if necessary. 6. Send back the LCRs.