Amol Singh vs Mohan Lal and Others

V.N. Varma, J.—This revision has (sic)isen out of a case u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure.

The subject matter of dispute in this case were plots Nos. 286-A and 286-B of village Galthuwa. According to O.P. No. 1 these plots belonged to O.P. No. 2, his wife, and she had always been in possession of it. The applicant asserted his right and title to the disputed plots. He also alleged that he had been in possession of the same. This dispute led to an apprehension of breach of peace and O.P. No. 1 moved the court of S.D.M. Faridpur to initiate proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate felt satisfied that there was an apprehension of breach of peace and he, therefore, passed a preliminary order on 30--7--1969 and attached the disputed plots. The Magistrate after going through the material present on record felt satisfied that O.P. No. 1 had been in possession over the disputed plots on the date the preliminary order was passed. He, therefore, released the disputed plots in his favor. The applicant felt dissatisfied with the order passed by the Magistrate and went up in revision to the court of Session. The Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court to quash the order passed by the Magistrate and the High Court quashed the Magistrate''s order on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to release the property in favor of O.P. No. 1, when according to his own showing O.P. No. 2 had been in possession of the disputed plots at the time when the same were attached. Thereafter the Magistrate inquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the disputed plots and the crops standing thereon had been attached from the possession of O.P. No. 2 and he, therefore, released the same in her favor. The applicant went up in revision against the order passed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session. The Sessions Judge dismissed his revision and hence the present revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I do not think that this revision has any merit behind it. After the proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure had been quashed by the High Court, the Magistrate was bound to restore the property to the person from whose possession it had been attached. It was, therefore, absolutely legitimate on the part of the Magistrate to hold an inquiry to find out as to from whose possession the subject-matter of dispute had been attached. To say that he had no authority to hold such an inquiry, would not be correct. After all, he had to pass some order for the disposal of the property and he had to deliver its possession to the person who was best entitled to it. u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure he had jurisdiction to pass incidental orders regarding restoration of the attached property. To find out the person who was best entitled to the possession of the property, he had to hold an inquiry, which he did. He called upon the parties to lead evidence as to from whose possession the property had been attached. O.P. No. 2 was also permitted to lead evidence. It was found that she had purchased the disputed plots from one Bhikham Singh on 14--3--1967 and had got possession over the same from him. The evidence led also went to show that she had been in possession of the disputed plots at all relevant times. The courts below, therefore, rightly released the disputed plots in favor of O.P. No. 2. The orders passed by the courts below are absolutely correct and call for no interference.

In the result, I find no force in this revision and dismiss it accordingly.