High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
PANNA RAM v CHANDRABHAN AND ORS - CRLMP Case No. 529 of 2000  RD-RJ 4020 (17 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.529/2000
Chandrabhan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER :: 17/08/2007
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Mrs. Gayatri Rathore, for petitioner
Mr. Manoj Sharma, for respondents
Instant petition is directed against the 24th order dated August, 1999 whereby learned
Executive Magistrate while exercising his power u/ss.145, 146 Cr.P.C. on the date of filing of application by respondents after recording satisfaction about breach of peace with regard to disputed land, passed order for attachment and
Receiver was appointed u/s.146 Cr.P.C. and called upon petitioner to appear so that the dispute could be resolved.
It appears that petitioner after putting appearance before learned Magistrate, filed 16th revision petition, which was dismissed on
June, 2000. The only fact was examined by learned
Magistrate and so also by Court of Revision about prima facie opinion which the authority expressed about disturbance of breach of peace and certainly, these proceedings being interim measure neither decide the right title nor
CMP 529/2000 possession of the parties in dispute. It has come on record that respondents filed revenue suit for declaration along with application for interim injunction filed u/s.212 of Rajasthan Tenancy
Act. It has also come on record that the petitioner and respondents belong to same family, but with regard to the dispute in respect of land in question, a criminal case was also instituted u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 & 302 IPC.
After going through the order impugned, this
Court is of the opinion that the learned
Magistrate after recording his satisfaction on the basis of complaint and so also of the report which he received from the concerned SHO, expressed his prima facie opinion so that breach of peace may not be disturbed and the petitioner at this stage has a right to submit reply before the concerned authority so that the matter could have been adjudicated. Even when this petition was filed, only the stay granted by this court was to keep the further proceedings of learned trial Judge stayed. As such the order passed by the learned Magistrate which is impugned in the instant petition remained operative.
Counsel for parties are not aware of final decision in the revenue suit filed which alone will decide their inter se rights finally. This court is of the opinion that under the order impugned only interim arrangement was made which
CMP 529/2000 gives liberty to petitioner to file reply and the same could be considered by learned Magistrate under the procedure provided u/ss.145 & 146
This court does not find any error in the order impugned and considers proper that both the parties may appear before the concerned Executive 24th
Magistrate on September, 2007 and it is expected that after taking their reply and objections, if any, he may pass appropriate necessary orders within three months thereafter.
With the above observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Record be sent back to trial court forthwith. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.