Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1787 (RAJ)

Shanti v. State of Rajasthan

2015-10-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this miscellaneous petition is heard and is being decided today itself. 2. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Revision No.65/2012 whereby, the learned revisional court upheld the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rawatsar in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. By the order dated 19.11.2012, learned SDM directed attachment of a plot No.59 located at Ward No.19, Kasba Rawatsar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are residing in the property in question. The execution of the attachment order was stayed by the learned revisional court way back in the year 2012 itself but pursuant to the revisional court's order dated 15.07.2015 whereby, the case was remanded back to the Executive Magistrate, the receiver has dispossessed the petitioners on 06.10.2015 and the petitioners rendered homeless. He thus submits that the very proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are absurd because the respondent No.2 failed to make out a case that the petitioners had dispossessed him two months before the institution of the proceedings. He thus prays the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The fact that the attachment order was stayed by the learned revisional court and was kept in abeyance for three years is not disputed. The petitioners were in possession of the disputed property and are reported to be residing therein. No untoward incident involving breach of peace is said to have occurred in the intervening period between the parties owing to the disputed property. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Executive Magistrate was not at all justified in directing attachment of the property in question. The learned revisional court was also not justified in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners on a technical ground. 6. In view of the above, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rawatsar is quashed to the extent the property was directed to be attached and the receiver was appointed thereupon. 6. In view of the above, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rawatsar is quashed to the extent the property was directed to be attached and the receiver was appointed thereupon. However, the preliminary order directing institution of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is maintained. The receiver shall forthwith hand over the possession to the party from which it was taken. The learned Executive Magistrate shall conclude the main proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. within a period of 18 months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.