Gani Dar vs Rehrai & Ors.

In a matter u/s 145 Cr. P. C. an order carne to be passed u/s 145 (i) by the Executive Magistrate Bandipora. A revision against the same was

taken before the Session Judge Baramulla who vide his order dt 91280 made a reference to this court with the observation that the order passed

by the Executive Magistrate did not appear to have been passed in accordance with the previsions of Sub Sec (1) of Sec 145 Cr. P. C. and

therefore, submitted that the older u/s 145 (4) passed by the learned Executive Magistrate be quashed.

I have heard the learned' counsel for the parties and have gone through the reoord.

It appears that on spot there did exist a dispute with regard to the possession of a piece of land. When the application was first filed before the

Executive Magistrate, he appears to have sent the same to the S. H. O. Bandipora Police Station for report, whose report is on the file. In the

report, the S. H. O. has stated that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of some piece of land and that the

dispute was likely to result in a breach of piece and there was every likelihood that some quarrel may take place on the spot. On the receipt of this

report the Executive Magistrate passed an order 'directing the attachment of the property. He refered to the rejjprt of S. H. O. in his order also. It

has been argued before the learned Sessions Judge as well as before me by the learned counsel Mr. Hagroo, that as the Magistrate has not in so

many words stated in his order that on sport because of the dispute there was likelihood of breach of peace, the order as such was not in sufficient

compliance with the requirements of subcec (1) of Sec 145 Cr. P. C. and as such needs to be quashed. As I have earlier said the order of the

Evecutive Magistrate does make a reference to the report of the S. H. O. concerned who in clear terms had reported there was some likelihood of

breach of peace on the spot. Though the order of the Executive Magistrate does not use these words specifically but but we have to read the order

as a whole and when the order refers to the report of the S. H. O. the report of the S. H. O. becomes part of' the order. The learned Executive

Magistrate has relied on the report of the S. H. O. and passed the order of attachment. We need not stress that the Magistrate should have

repeated and reproduced the words which had been used by the S. H. O. concerned on which report the learned Magietrate has relied. In my

opinion, therfore, the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Baramulia is answered accordingly i. e. to say that the order of the Eeecutive

Magistrate was prefectly legal and contained all the require ments of S. 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The order of the Executive Magistrate is therefore

maintained.

It is directed that the file be sent direct to the Executive Magistrate Bandipora for further necessary action. He will, of course, keep in view the

fact that the dispute even according to the petitioner, before him is only with regard to some piece of land only and not with regard to the whole of

it and also it appears from the Intikhabi girdawari the same pieces of land have been shown as 'Khushki'. He will consider all these matters and

then decide the matter in accordence with law.

The parties are directed appear before the Executive Magistrate Bandipore on 24 3 82. The record concerned may be returned immediately to

him.