Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 344 (PAT)

Anjani Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-14

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed to quash the entire proceeding initiated under Section 145, Cr PC in Case No. 137 (M) of 2006 pending in the Court of Shri A.K.Razak, Executive Magistrate, Lakhisarai as well as order dated 18.9.2006 passed under Section 146, Cr PC in the said proceeding. 3. The properties involved in the proceeding are properties of Ram Janki Thakur-Bari situated in village Amarpur. Admittedly, one Ram Chandra Prasad Mahto, the father of both the parties was its last sebait. He executed a registered deed dated 2.4.2001 in favour of the petitioner appointing him as sebait in his place of the Thakurbari in question. It further appears that the petitioner filed a Title Suit No. 44 of 2001 before the Court of Munsif, Lakhisarai for declaration that he has been validly appointed as sebait by virtue of the deed executed by his father and also for permanent injunction against the opposite-party. Next year in 2002, the opposite-party No. 2 also filed title suit bearing No. 16 of 2002 against the petitioner and his own father Ram Chandra Prasad Mahto who was then alive, for declaration of deed dated 2.4.2001 executed by his father in favour of the petitioner as void and illegal. However, he has not claimed himself as sebait of the Thakur-Bari. 4. Annexure-C of the supplementary affidavit goes to show that in title suit filed by the petitioner, the opposite-party No. 2 himself filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC upon which the learned Munsif vide order dated 28.7.2004 passed order directing both the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit. 5. Annexure-6 is the petition filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC. The defendants have not claimed their possession over the land in question. On the other hand, possession is said to be of deity. Prayer is made only for restraining the petitioner not to mutate his name upon the properties in question. Accordingly, the above order dated 28.7.2004 was passed by the learned Munsif. 6. Thus, from the above admitted facts, it is quite clear that actually there is on land dispute between the parties. The dispute is for sebaitship of the petitioner. Both have filed title suit against each other in respect of sebaitship of Thakur-Bari. Accordingly, the above order dated 28.7.2004 was passed by the learned Munsif. 6. Thus, from the above admitted facts, it is quite clear that actually there is on land dispute between the parties. The dispute is for sebaitship of the petitioner. Both have filed title suit against each other in respect of sebaitship of Thakur-Bari. Suits are pending since much before the initiation of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC therefore, only Civil Court, before whom suits are pending, is the competent forum to pass order in respect of the properties of the Thakur-Bari or deity. The opposite-party is quite entitled to seek appropriate relief in the civil suit instead of choosing the forum of executing Court under Section 145, Cr PC. 7. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances indicated above, initiation of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC properties of Thakur-Bari in question is not maintainable and it amounts to misuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, the entire proceeding initiated under Section 145, Cr PC including the order passed under Section 145, Cr PC is hereby quashed. Order quashed.