Jharkhand High Court
Degan Mahto @ Degan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 226 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 226 of 2020
1. Degan Mahto @ Degan Yadav, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Patto
Mahto
2. Amarnath Yadav @ Amarnath Mahto, aged about 58 years, Son of
Late Patto Mahto
3. Rajan Mahto @ Rajendra Mahto & Rajendar Pd. Yadav, aged about 28
years, Son of Degan Mahto @ Degan Yadav
4. Rabindra Mahto @ Rabindra Yadav, aged about 31 years, Son of
Degan Mahto @ Degan Yadav
5. Yogendra Mahto @ Yogendra Yadav @ Janardan Pd. Yadav, aged
about 27 years, Son of Degan Mahto @ Degan Yadav
6. Saroj Kumar Yadav @ Saroj Yadav, aged about 30 years, Son of
Amarnath Yadav @ Amarnath Mahto
7. Chandra Kant Mahto @ Chandra Kant Yadav, aged about 31 years, Son
of Amarnath Yadav @ Amarnath Mahto
All are resident of Village Upper Tharhi, P.O. + P.S. Sarwan, District-
Deoghar ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ashok Kumar Mahto @ Ashok Yadav, aged about 58 years, Son of Late
Munshi Mahto, Resident of Village Upper Tharhi, P.O. + P.S. Sarwan,
District- Deoghar ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : A.P.P.
-----
08/02.08.2022. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel
for opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
04.12.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.36 of 2018 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Deoghar.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petition being Cr. Misc. Case No.1033 of 2014 filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
was dropped vide order dated 24.11.2017 by the learned Sub-Divisional
Officer, Deoghar and he has not converted it under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and
against that order, opposite party no.2 has filed revision being Criminal
Revision No.36 of 2018 and the revisional court has set aside the order
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar vide order dated
04.12.2019. He further submits that there is no finding on the point of
breach of peace.
4. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel has appeared suo motu on
behalf of opposite party no.2 and he has filed I.A. No.4539 of 2020 for
accepting the Vakalatnama.
5. In view of the prayer made in the said I.A, his appearance is
accorded.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No.4539 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of.
7. Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 relied
upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar
Singh @ Arbind Singh v. Shrawan Kumar Agrawal , reported in 2014
(2) East Cr. C 343 (Jhr) and by way of relying the said judgment, he
submits that pre-condition for initiating a proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. is that there should be bona fide land dispute and that dispute may
result into an apprehension of breach of peace. The said satisfaction is
necessarily to be there for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
8. The Court has perused the impugned order. The learned revisional
court only on the point of not giving finding of breach of peace by the
learned trial court, has set aside the order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Officer, Deoghar and only a fresh order was directed to be
passed. When there was no finding on the point of breach of peace and
only because of pendency of Misc. case, the proceeding under Section 144
Cr.P.C. in absence of finding of breach of peace cannot be allowed to be
dropped. The satisfaction is required to be recorded by the learned trial
court whereas in the case in hand, the same has not been recorded, in view
of the ratio of the Court.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, there is no
illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
The parties are at liberty to disclose their possession as well as
apprehension of breach of peace before the concerned court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
