Jharkhand High Court
Navratan Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 November, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2343 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2343 of 2014
1. Navratan Dubey
2. Udai Dubey
3. Lala Dubey ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Satyanarain Dubey
3. Satyendra Dubey
4. Nityanand Dubey
5. Shambhu Nath Dubey
6. Parbhu Nath Dubey
7. Lalan Dubey
8. Krishnanand Dubey
9. Uday Dubey
10. Dayanand Dwivedi @ D.Y. Dubey ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
For O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For O.P. No.10 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
10/06.11.2023 Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Rahul Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.10.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.08.2014
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa in Cr. Revision
No.96/2013 affirming the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa in Misc. Case No.18/2009 holding that
the disputed land is a pathway and direction has been issued to remove
obstruction on the application filed by the private opposite parties under
Section 147 Cr.P.C.
3. The order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Garhwa was challenged by the petitioners in Cr. Revision No.96
of 2013 and vide judgment dated 26.08.2014, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa has rejected the said criminal revision application
preferred by the petitioners and affirmed the order passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa and, thereafter, the present case has
been filed.
4. The point, which has been argued before this Court by Mr. K.K.
Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that Section 148 Cr.P.C.
provides that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate if thinks it necessary,
may got the matter enquired by a Magistrate subordinate to him. He
submits that whereas in the present case, the then Sub-Divisional
Magistrate has enquired into the matter and based on that his successor
has passed the order, which is not in accordance with law. He further
submits that the land was settled in view of partition suit and in spite of
partition deed, the condition was there that the private opposite parties will
use the land of the petitioners as pathway and in lieu of that the opposite
parties will transfer the land of 5 Katha in favour of the petitioners, but the
same was not transferred.
5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2
and 3 submits that this order is of the year 2014 and it is only emergent in
nature.
6. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that the
learned Court has rightly passed the order. He submits that after the
criminal revision order if illegality is not there, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable.
7. The Court has gone through the order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Garhwa dated 19.09.2013 and finds that the learned
Court has considered the evidence of both the sides including the
documentary as well as oral and he has also considered the enquiry made
by the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate
is also having jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the person, who has
enquired the matter, has not passed the said order. The word used in
Section 148 Cr.P.C is 'may' and not 'shall', which is not mandatory in nature.
In view of that, first contention of Mr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the
petitioners is not being accepted by this Court.
8. So far as second submission with regard to pathway in terms of
partition decree is concerned, that can not be appreciated here and that can
be subject matter of the competent Court if such a dispute is there.
9. Further, the Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Garhwa has passed elaborate order considering all aspects of the matter.
10. In view of that, injustice has not been done to the petitioners and in
garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision is not maintainable.
11. In view of the above facts, no case of interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
12. Since the main petition itself is dismissed, the Court finds that there is
no merit in other I.As., which are, accordingly, also dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
