The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., impugning the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, held that no basis has been disclosed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate how there is apprehension of breach of peace.
Brief Facts:
The proceeding before the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, under Section 144 Cr.P.C., was initiated on the report of Officer-in-charge, who had reported that in regard to land, there is a dispute between Harsh Kumar Prasad Singh and Raj Kumar Prasad Singh as well as Nand Kumar Prasad on account of a dispute regarding title and possession of the landed property. Officer-in-charge had reported that on account of the claim and counterclaim to the land in question, there is an apprehension of a breach of peace. Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate converted the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. holding that there is a possibility of breach of peace and, hence, for permanent solution of the dispute, proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is required to be initiated. The petitioner preferred Revision against the said order which was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the land in question is in possession of the Petitioner. This land has come in the share of the petitioner after partition in the family. He argued that even otherwise there is no occasion for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. because this extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated only in circumstances of apprehension of breach of public peace on account of forceful dispossession of the landed property.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is in possession of the property in question. However, the petitioner herein is forcibly trying to dispossess him and harvest the standing crop on the land.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the dispute between the parties is in regard to the title and possession of the land in question. There is no reference to any forceful dispossession in the report of the police nor in the order sheet of the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate whereby he initiated proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that no basis has been disclosed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate how there is apprehension of breach of peace. The alleged facts and circumstances show that this is a classic case of civil dispute between the parties and it is the only Civil Court, which have jurisdiction to deal with the issue. There is no occasion to resort to jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This is a colorable exercise of power by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate usurping the jurisdiction of Civil Court, which cannot be permitted.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order dated 17.05.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and the order dated 17.07.2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate are liable to be quashed.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Prasad Singh v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37021 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Upendra Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
