Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1983 (PAT)

Smt. Rampati Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-08-27

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar in Case No.1316 of 2001 whereby a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both the parties were restrained from going to the disputed land. 2. Short fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the prayer made by the opposite parties 2 to 21. Subsequently, the said proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the order dated 7.2.2002. 3. Aggrieved with the order of initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 7.10.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party nos.2 to 21, this Court directed that as an interim measure, further proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar in connection with Case No.1316 of 2001 shall remain stayed until further orders and thereafter, on 13.8.2003, the case was admitted for , hearing and it was directed that in the meantime, the order dated 7.2.2002 passed in Case No.1316 of 2001 by the S.D.M., Nawadah, Sadar shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. It was submitted by Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute in relation to the land in question was already settled by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition at pages 20-32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically pointed out page-30 internal page-11 of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. The learned Sub Judge-Ill, Nawadah has declared the title and peaceful possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically pointed out page-30 internal page-11 of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. The learned Sub Judge-Ill, Nawadah has declared the title and peaceful possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the competent court of civil jurisdiction has held the title as well as possession of the petitioners, besides the fact that petitioners are still continuing with the peaceful possession over the land in question, there was no requirement by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 24th July,2001 passed in in Ttitle Suit No.15 of 1990, the opposite parties have filed an appeal, which is pending. 6. Shri Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 21 has strongly opposed the contention of Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted by Shri Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 21 that still the opposite parties are in peaceful possession over the land in question on the strength of parwana issued in their favour by the competent authority. It was stated that since the petitioners were trying to dispossess the opposite parties, they were constrained to file the petition for initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid ground, it was prayed to reject the present petition. 7. I have also heard Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the judgment and decree dated 24th July,2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. 7. I have also heard Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the judgment and decree dated 24th July,2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. Once a competent court of the civil jurisdiction has decided and held title and peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question, the court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to start a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was passed long back in the year 2002 and the said order was already stayed by this Court and this Court, by its order dated 7.10.2002. Keeping in view the fact that order impugned was already stayed by this Court and the court of civil jurisdiction has already held title and possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners, there is no need to allow the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. to further proceed and as such the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 passed in Case No.1316 of 2001 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah and other subsequent orders are hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.