Major Singh and Anr vs Chatradhari Rai & Anr.

R. K. Jain , J.—Case is taken up in the revised list. None appears for the parties to argue the revision.

Earlier when the revision was called, it was ordered that prayer for passing over on account of illness slip on behalf of Sri N.N. Singh is rejected and the case shall be taken up in the revised list. Still none has come to argue the revision.

I have therefore, myself gone through the judgments of the courts below and also perused the material on record.

The father of the present revisionists had moved an application for action under Section 145, Cr. P.C. on the ground that he was Bhumidhar in possession of the plot of land. The opposite parties intend to take unauthorised possession on account of which grave apprehension of breach of peace had arisen. The learned Magistrate called for the police report and thereafter being satisfied that there was grave apprehension of breach of peace, passed preliminary order under Section 145, Cr.P.C.

Thereafter parties led evidence and the learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 8382 held that the applicant Feinku Singh was in possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order as also within two months next before passing of the preliminary order. Learned Magistrate passed the consequential order.

Opposite party Chatradhari Rai filed criminal revision No. 37 of 1982. The main ground on which the judgment and order of the trial Court was challenged was that in respect of the disputed plot of land there was civil litigation between the parties and in civil suit No. 192 of 1969 it was held that Sri Ram Das through his Mukhtaream Sri Chatradhari Rai was in actual physical possession of the land in question. The Civil Court had also permanently injuncted Feinku Singh from disturbing the possession of Chatradhari Rai Mukhtaream of Ram Das. Civil appeal preferred against the judgment and order in the said suit was also dismissed by judgment and decree 31773. It was thereafter that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were initiated.

The revisional court set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court on the ground that when there existed a valid decree in favour of the revisionist, the criminal court in exercise of powers under Section 145, Cr. P.C. could not undo the decision of the civil court. The revisional court had also cited case laws in support of its decision. In my view there is no illegality in the judgment and order of the revisional court.

Revision has no merits. It is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 281183 is hereby vacated. Revision dismissed.