Pathik Shiksha Parishad Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 736 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 25 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Pathik Shiksha Parishad Inter College Sadh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Agrawal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard Mr. Prem Chand, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Nishad, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

By the impugned order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narval, Kanpur Nagar in Case no. 03240 of 2029 (Computerized Case no. T202003410403240), Pathik Shiksha Parishad Inter College, Sadh vs. Shiv Ram Yadav, and others, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been dropped primarily on account that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. It has been recorded that there were title disputes between parties, which have been decided in favour of the second party by the competent Court of Revenue and Civil jurisdiction. It is in the above context that the Magistrate has dropped proceedings. It is to be remembered that the Executive Magistrate is not a Judge and is not required to decide disputes of title or possessory title or even propriety of possession. The Executive Magistrate decides the question of actual physical possession on the date of making a preliminary order, under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. or two months anterior to it, only when there is apprehension of breach of peace relating to possession of immovable property. If there is no case of apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate would not have any jurisdiction. Here, the Magistrate has held that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Even if there were apprehension of breach of peace, effective orders regarding title and possession having been passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction, breach of peace in the sense required to invest the Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not there. If in the face of a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction regarding title or possession, the other party attempt to encroach or indulge in any act fomenting breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate, the police and all administrative Authorities are to act in aid of the decision of the Civil or Revenue Court of competent jurisdiction and protect possession of the party, in whose favour judgment has been entered.

In this view of the law and the findings recorded by the Magistrate, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narval, Kanpur Nagar cannot be said to be flawed.

This Revision fails and is summarily dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.1.2021

Anoop