Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1934 (PAT)

Bhushan Singh v. State of Bihar

2011-09-09

MANDHATA SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. for the land, detailed In petition. order dated 15.03.2007 is passed by the learned S.D.M., Aurangabad to attach the land under Section 146 of Cr. P.C. 3. Illegalities shown by the learned counsel for petitioner are, first for the same land Partition Suit No. 86 of 2005 was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-Ist, Aurangabad. second there was no emergency essential for satisfaction of the Court to pass the impugned order. A.I.R. 1985 SC 472 is referred on the point that when the matter is pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction (Civil Courts) proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. 1983 P.L.J.R. 257 a decision of Patna High Court is referred for application of jurisdiction under Section 146 Cr. P.C. existence of emergency or urgency. 4. In the case of A.I.R. 1985 SC 472, principle is decided by the Supreme Court that when a civil litigation is pending for the property where in the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated. initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. is not justified. In that case, matter in controversy was decided by competent Civil Court and then only proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was initiated while in the instant case, partition suit is pending only without any relief on the point of possession of the parties over the particular piece of land. 5. Second point is emergency or urgency. 1983 P.L.J.R. 257 is on the point of emergency or urgency that if there is no material to show the emergency no order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. can be passed. In the instant case. there is clearly mentioned that record as well as report of officer-in-charge, Tandwa Police Station vide Memo No.12 of 2007 dated 12.01.2007 was there on the record to disclose that harvesting was the reason behind apprehension of un-towards happening extending to violence even murder (khunkharabi). So, the principles laid down in both the decisions are not applicable in the instant case. Finding no illegality committed by the learned S.D.M., this quashing petition is dismissed. 6. However, parties are at liberty to take appropriate initiatives in partition suit for seeking appropriate relief, Petition dismissed.