Jharkhand High Court
Manohar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 28 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 624 of 2014
----
Manohar Mahto, son of Nathan Mahto, resident of village Domandih, P.O.
and P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. K.S.Nanda, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs.Vandana Bharti, Advocate
----
8/28.04.2023 Heard Mr. K.S.Nanda, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Mrs.Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for respondent State.
2. Notice upon the O.P.Nos.3 and 4 have been effected and
inspite of that they have chosen not to appear. By order dated
30.08.2022, the matter was adjourned in anticipation of appearance of
O.P.No.3 and 4 and it was observed that if they will not appear on the
next date, appropriate order shall be passed. Accordingly this petition is
being heard on merit.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
19.11.2013 passed in M.P.No.107 of 2004/ M-01 of 2005, pending before
learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu, Ranchi.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P.No.2
and 3 has filed application for initiation of proceeding under section 144
Cr.P.C before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu on 2.12.2004 with
respect to land comprised within plot no.319, 385 and 387 under khata
no.8, having total area of 96 decimals of village Domandih as there was a
dispute between the parties and on account of tense situation a report
was called for from office of concerned police station and thereafter
notice was issued to present petitioner and then proceeding under
section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. The petitioner made appearance and file
show case with prayer to drop the proceeding.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both
parties have appeared in the proceeding and filed show cause in the year
2006 itself and after hearing both parties learned court by order dated
4.3.2005 has converted it under section 145 Cr.P.C. He submits that after
converting it under section 145 Cr.PC, the learned court has placed the
same for evidence and till date matter is still pending. He submits that
the petition filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2012 with prayer to drop the
proceeding initiated by order dated 5.3.2005 has been rejected merely
referring the judgment in case of Ram Chandra Rai and Ors v. The State
of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1991 BBCJ pg.100. He submits that learned
court rejected the petition only on the ground that evidence is already
going on.
6. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel for the
respondent State submits that learned court has rejected the petition
considering that evidence was going on.
7. It is admitted fact that section 144 Cr.P.C proceeding was
initiated on petition dated 4.01.2005 the same was converted under
section 145 Cr.P.C by order dated 4.3.2005. The petitioner filed petition
on 19.06.2012 for closing of the case. Considering that nine years has
elapsed and nothing concrete has come forward and there is no doubt
that proceeding under section 144 and 145 Cr.P.C are meant for
emergent situation and such matters are required to be disposed of
expeditiously. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the
Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra
Rai and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1991 BBCJ
pg.100. Paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"5. While provision of section 144 of the Code deal with
urgent case of nuisance or apprehended danger, the provision of
section 145 of the Code also deals with a situation when an
apprehension of breach of peace exists or continues. In this view
of the matter, the provisions of these two sections can be said to
be for urgent steps to be taken by a Magistrate to meet any
apprehension of breach of peace. As such these provisions are in
the nature of emergency provisions. If, however, a proceeding
under section 145 of the Code remains pending for more then
seven years without any fresh allegation of an apprehension of
breach of peace, we feel, that such a proceeding should not be
allowed to continue beyond this period since obviously it cannot
be said that there is any longer any urgency in the matter. In the
meantime, the parties will have ample opportunity to go to a civil
court of competent jurisdiction to get their right, title or interest,
as also their claim for possession over the disputed land decided
finally instead of going to the Magistrate under section 145 of
the Code. If the proceeding under section 145 of the Code under
the aforesaid condition is allowed to continue beyond a period of
seven years, in our view the very purpose of the judicial process
gets defeated. Any such proceeding cannot be allowed to
continue indefinitely if these is no apprehension of breach of
peace or any new dispute likely to cause a breach of peace
concerning land or water or boundaries thereof. It also goes
against the principle of expeditious disposal of the cases. No
harm is likely to be caused to the parties who can seek the
redressal of their grievances in civil court of competent
jurisdiction. In the present case it appears that the parties have
remained litigating in this proceeding under section 145 of the
Code for two decades since it appears that the proceeding under
section 144 of the Code was started on 24.6.1966 and was
converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code on
23.7.1966. Hence we hold that the urgent proceeding under
section 145 of the Code must be treated to be closed after a lapse
of seven years as an urgency cannot be said to continues beyond
this period. In suitable cases, however, there can be no bar in
starting a fresh proceeding under section 145 of the Code if the
situation so warrants."
8. Considering that till date the said case is still pending and
also considering that sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C are meant for emergent
situation and if any law and order problem are there, these sections are
invoked, in that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding and
the order dated 19.11.2013 passed in M.P.No.107 of 2004/ M-01 of 2005,
pending before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu, Ranchi is set aside.
9. It is made clear that if any emergent situation will be there,
the authority may consider it in accordance with law.
10. Cr.M.P. No.624 of 2014 is disposed of.
11. Pending petition also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
