Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1266 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2022-04-22

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dudu, District Jaipur (for short ’learned Revisional Court’) whereby the learned Revisional Court declined as also to invoke the jurisdiction and to interfere in the order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Dudu, District Jaipur, whereby the SDM passed the order under Sections 145,146(1) Cr.P.C and appointed Receiver directing to the Tehsildar Mozmabad to take the Government land from the possession of Pujari and maintained the status-quo, as it was existed, on that day. The matter was pending for consideration before the learned ACJM, so, the order passed, would be based on the order pending decision in case No.66/2016, ’titled as ’Murti Bagvan Shri Gopalji Vs. District Magistrate’. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed agriculture land is recorded in the name of Mafi Mandir Shri Gopal Ji situated in village Seva, Tehsil Mozmabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the disputed land is being cultivated by ancestors of the petitioners since long. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the private respondents are creating hurdles on the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the private respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the year, 2016. The petitioners had filed a civil suit for injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, Jaipur in which learned Court below vide order dated 20.09.2016 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in spite of pending the civil suit, SDM, Dudu, Jaipur wrongly initiated the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the said complaint was investigated by the concerned police officers in which it was clearly stated that the petitioners are Pujaris and they are cultivating the land. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that order of the learned SDM is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned SDM has wrongly ordered to the Tehsildar Mozmabad for appointing ’Receiver’ till final disposal of the civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that order of the learned SDM is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned SDM has wrongly ordered to the Tehsildar Mozmabad for appointing ’Receiver’ till final disposal of the civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners had filed a revision petition against the order of the learned SDM but learned Revisional Court also erred in dismissing the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Apex Court and various High Courts clearly stated that when a civil suit is pending, proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. So, orders passed by the learned SDM, Dudu, Jaipur as well as learned Revisional Court be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments; (1) Ram Sumer Puri Mahant, Vs. State Of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 ; (2) Chatra Ram & Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported in 1996 WLC Raj UC 161; (3) Mahant Ram Saran Das Vs. Harish Mohan in Case No.794/2000 decided on 15.09.2000; (4) Sahab Ram and Anr. Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.390/1994 decided on 01.11.2011 and (5) Jagdish Prasad & Anr. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Others in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.665/2002 decided on 09.02.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners had filed a civil suit regarding cancellation of document/s dated 09.09.2015. They had not filed the civil suit with regard to title or declaration. So, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. have rightly been initiated by the learned SDM, Dudu, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioners are not maintaining the temple. They are misusing income of the land which is to be used for maintenance of the temple. So, written deed dated 09.09.2015 was executed and learned SDM, Dudu, Jaipur has rightly ordered to appoint ’Receiver’. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. The State and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 1436 . 6. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. The State and another reported in AIR 1994 SC 1436 . 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned orders. 7. Learned SDM, Dudu, Jaipur in its order clearly stated that status-quo was ordered in the civil suit by the learned trial Court and dispute regarding income from the land is pending between the parties. So, learned Executive Magistrate has rightly initiated the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C.. So, orders of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dudu, District Jaipur as well as learned Revisional Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 8. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. 9. Stay application also stands disposed of.