Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1245 (JHR)

Bindeshwar Mahto v. Motilal Gope

2014-12-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2014
Order : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State, however, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 to 10 is present. 2. By means of this application the petitioners have challenged the entire proceedings as well as the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chas in M.P. Case No. 116 of 2001 by which a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)., was initiated in which it was contended that a tank known as Barabandh comprising an area of 13.75 acres pertaining to plot Nos. 564 and 432 under Khata No. 77 in Mouza Pindrazora belonging to them and their co-sharers, which was used for rearing fishes, was settled in favour of Shiv Rai Pandey vide registered Patta dated 25.5.1911. 3. Earlier also a proceeding was initiated u/s 145 Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 99 of 1917, when the settlers attempted to take possession of the tank but the same was decided in favour of the opposite parties herein on 3.8.1917. It was further contended that wrong entries were made in the Khatiyan during the last survey. The ancestors of the petitioners in this application, had filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 73 of 1973, which was dismissed on 23.1.1978 for default. In such circumstances, a prayer was made for initiation of a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. 4. Based on the application vide order dated 21.3.2001, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chas issued a direction for initiation of a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari and ultimately vide order dated 27.4.2001 a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn up against the members of both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the application made by the petitioners and others a proceeding was earlier drawn up u/s 145 Cr.P.C. vide M.P. Case No. 317 of 1998 and said proceeding ended up in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 18.9.1998 which was assailed by the opposite parties herein in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1998, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 6. 6. Learned counsel further submits that since the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was decided on 18.9.1998 by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chas in favour of the petitioners, which was also affirmed by the revisional court and since the opposite parties herein did not show any interest when the revisional proceeding was going on, the initiation of a subsequent proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C., which has been challenged in this application, is a futile exercise on the part of the opposite parties herein and thus the same is fit to be quashed. 7. It appears that the present quashing application was filed at the threshold of the initiation of a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C., whereby directions were issued to both the sides to appear and put forward their respective cases before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chas. At this stage in absence of any illegality having been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court will generally be reluctant to interfere in such proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. At the present stage since the parties have only appeared and no further steps have been taken in the said proceeding therefore in such circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.PC. 8. In view of the discussions made herein above, I find no illegality in the order dated 27.4.2001, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chas in M.P. Case No. 116 of 2001 by which a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. has been initiated. In such a view of the matter, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby rejected.