AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 385 wordsP.K. Tripathy, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is present. None appears for the opposite party.
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the revision is disposed of in the following manner:
Petitioner is 2nd party member in Crl. Misc. Case No. 629/96 of the Court of Sri B.P. Sarangi, Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. That proceeding was initiated u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure as per order dated 17.12.96. Both the parties in that proceeding claimed right and possession over the disputed case land. On 3.2.1997 learned Executive Magistrate heard argument and on 25.2.1997 passed the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo and not to change the nature and character of the suit until the matter is decided by the competent Civil Court.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly argues that with the expiry of the period of two months from the date of initiation of the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure the prohibitory order was no more enforceable nor the Magistrate had jurisdiction to decide the matter on merit while acting u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the order dated 25.2.1,997 is illegal being without jurisdiction.
Time and again this Court has said in several reported and unreported decisions that to decide the factum of possession with a view'' to avoid apprehension of breach of peace and to maintain public tranquility in the locality a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure is inappropriate and if the requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is satisfied then proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is the appropriate course which should be resorted to. Learned Executive Magistrate has failed to follow the law in the aforesaid manner for no good reason. Apart from that, learned Magistrate should have remained conscious of the position of statutory law in Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure and should have refrained from passing the impugned order on 25.2.1997 i.e. after expiry of the period of two months from the date of prohibitory order u/s 144 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure passed on 17.12.96. Need less to say that the said order having no sanction of law was passed without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Criminal Revision is allowed.