Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 938 (HP)

JAGDISH RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-10-30

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2007 affirming order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb in case No. 41/4 / 06. 2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a retired Central Government employee. The respondents No. 2 to 8 are not having good relations with him due to civil litigation. The respondents extended threats of interference by taking forcible possession of his property. The petitioner apprehending imminent danger to his life and property at the hands of respondents submitted an application to Superintendent of Police, Una which was forwarded to Police Post, Chintpurni for inquiry and necessary action. The police after inquiry submitted papers to learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, dropped the proceedings on 29.3.2007. The petitioner filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Una against the order dated 29.3.2007, which was dismissed on 8.8.2008. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 29.3.2007 of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is illegal, void and is not sustainable. The period of six months would start from the date of appearance of the respondents. 4. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate did not secure the presence of respondents, he erred in dropping the proceedings. It has been submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the law properly. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has observed that medical certificate indicates commission of substantive offence. The occurrence took place nine months ago and thereafter no fresh incident of breach of peace was reported. In these circumstances, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dropped the proceedings. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that rapat No. 11 dated 2.6.2006 indicates that the petitioner had given push to Kaushalya Devi (since deceased) and Tilak Raj brother of petitioner came with a danda. The petitioner on 6.6.2006 lodged rapat No.19 and stated that he had obtained stay order from the court and the respondents are interfering in his possession against the order of the civil court. The petitioner on 6.6.2006 lodged rapat No.19 and stated that he had obtained stay order from the court and the respondents are interfering in his possession against the order of the civil court. It has also been observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una had directed the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to nature, possession and construction over the suit land till the disposal of the suit. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a specific finding that no fact of breach of peace was brought on record by the petitioner except the fact that respondents were trying to disobey the orders of the civil Court. The dispute of this nature is civil dispute. In absence of apprehension of breach of peace Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. Kaushalya Devi mother of respondents No. 2 to 8 reported the matter against the petitioner earlier to the report of petitioner lodged by him on 6.6.2006. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of report dated 6.6.2006. At the time of hearing of the present petition, it has not been submitted that after 6.6.2006 any threats were extended by the respondents 2 to 8 to the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge on facts rejected the revision. No interference can be made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by treating the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as second revision unless perversity in the impugned judgment or jurisdiction error is established. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case that the impugned judgment is perverse or learned Sessions Judge has committed some jurisdictional error. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.