Ratanchand Jain And Anr vs Smt. Kusum And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1018 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRMP No.1163 of 2014

   1. Deleted.

   2. Prashant Kumar Jain S/o Ratanchand Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o
      Village Gourela, Bazar, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur Presently
      R/o At Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G.

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. Smt. Kusum Wd/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o
      Village Gourela, Mangli Bazar, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District Bilaspur
      C.G.

   2. Gopal Agrawal S/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o
      Village Gourela, Mangli Bazar, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur
      C.G.

   3. Prakash Agrawal S/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o
      Village Gourela, Mangli Bazar, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur
      C.G.

   4. Manish Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o
      Village Gourela, Mangli Bazar, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur
      C.G.

                                                            ---- Respondent



For Petitioner    : Shri PR Patankar, Advocate.
For Respondent    : None.


                    Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

                              Order On Board

16/2/2023 :

   1. Heard on application for deleting the name of petitioner No.1 from

      cause title, as he has died on 15.7.2022 and his son is already on

      record as petitioner No.2.
                                    2

2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Counsel for the

   petitioners is directed to carry out amendment during the course of the

   day before the Court Reader.

3. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for

   quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the

   Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Revision

   No.25/2011 whereby the order passed by the SDM, Pendra Road in

   Criminal Revision No.111/95 under Section 145 of the CrPC that there

   is no apprehension of breach of peace and, therefore, the matter was

   dropped, which was reopened by the impugned order.

4. Facts

of the case are that father-in-law of respondent No.1 and

grandfather of respondents No.2 to 4 late Fatte Chand had filed an

application under Sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC before the SDM

on 8.12.1995 alleging that he is the tenant of brother of petitioner No.1

Premchand Jain for a period of 50 years and the petitioners are trying

to evict him by exerting pressure. In the proceeding under Section

145 of the CrPC, the SDM, vide order dated 28.3.2011, after

considering the report of the SHO that there is no apprehension of

breach of peace, closed the matter. The said order was challenged by

the respondents before the revisional Court and the Additional

Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Revision No.25/2011, vide

order dated 18.11.2014, quashed the order passed by the SDM and

remitted the matter back to the SDM for further proceeding in

accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency

of the said proceeding, the matter was adjudicated by the civil Court

pertaining to the same property and the learned civil Judge, Class-I,

Pendra Road in Civil Suit No.1-A/01, vide judgment and decree dated

13.5.2016, has granted decree in favour of the petitioners, which has

been affirmed by the appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge in

Civil Appeal No.59-A/2016, vide judgment dated 7.4.2022 and the

respondents were directed to hand over vacant possession to the

petitioners. He also submits that when the rights of the parties were

adjudicated by the civil Court, continuation of the proceeding under

Section 145 of the CrPC amounts to abuse of process of the Court

and cannot be allowed to continue. For the same, learned counsel

places reliance on the judgments in the matters of Kunjbihari Vs.

Balram and Another {(2006) 11 SCC 66} and Ram Sumer Puri Mahant

Vs. State of UP and Others {(1985) 1 SCC 427}.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents

annexed with the petition.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner and considering the principles laid down in the matters of

Kunjbihari and Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (Supra) and the fact that the

matter has already been adjudicated and the rights of the parties have

been decided by the civil Court, this Court is of the opinion that

continuation of the proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC would

not serve any purpose, as the same would amount to abuse of

process of law.

8. For the foregoing, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order

dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra

Road in Criminal Revision No.25/2011 is hereby quashed.

9. Resultantly, proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC pending

before the SDM, Pendra Road also stands quashed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve