THIMMAPPA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal revisions arise out of the proceedings taken against the petitioners under S.107. Crl.P C Since these three revision petitions arise out of the same proceedings, they are dealt with and disposed of by one common order.

(2.) Proceedings were taken against the petitioners, who were respondents in the lower Court, under S 107 Crl.P.C for keeping peace The petitioner in CRP 139 of 1970 is the 2nd respondent in the trial Court. Respondent 3 in the said proceedings is one Pakru Gowda, who claims to be the tenant of the disputed land. It may bo mentioned that, first proceedings were taken against respondent 3 under S 145 Crl.P C and the Court passed a preliminary order under the said section on 15-2-1969. The said proceeding are still pending and they have not been disposed of. On 13-5-1969. proceeding under S 107 Crl.P.C. were initiated against the 15 respondents. WhiTe those proceedings were pending, again on 6-1-1970, proceedigns were initiated under S 107 Crl.P C against the same petitioners on the ground that they forcibly claimed the land comprised in two suryev numbers and were attempting to take possession of the same from Dr Shambu Sharma, the landlord of the land After passing the second order under S.112 Crl.P.C against the respondents, the learned Magistrate seems to have called for further report from the police On 27-1-1970, the police filed a further report. Thereafter, the Magistrate was not satisfied and called for another report The police filed a second report on 18-2-1970. Then, on 21-2-1970, the leaned Magistrate seems to have passed an interim under Sec.117(3) directing the petitioners herein to furnish scuritv and execute bonds for keeping the peace pending disposal of the main petition Cr.R P 88 and Cr.R.P.140 of 1970 have been filed bv all the 14 respondents rhallengng the said order passed by the learned Magistrate under S.117(3).

(3.) Sri A. G. Holla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the various proceedings taken against the petitioners are totally unwarranted and is an abuse of the process of the Court. Respondent 1 Pakru Gowda is the tenant cultivating the disputed land in question. Dr. Sharma is his landlord. The landlord filed a suit, O.S. No.344 of 1.968 against the tenant and prayed for an order of temporary injunction to restrain respondent 3 from interfering with the possession of the disputed land. The learned Munsiff, though he passed the Interim order, after respondent 3 entered appearance and contested the matter, vacated the said order and held on the material before him that respondent 3 was the tenant actually cultivating the land and in possession of the disputed land. Dr. Sharma thereafter went in appeal against the said order and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal filed by him and confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff holding that respondent 3 was the tenant actually cultivating the disputed land. Having failed in getting an order of temporary injunction, Dr. Sharma has initiated various proceedings against the respondents. It is argued that the various provisions of the Code have been mis-used and what is only a dispute between the landlord and the tenant has been converted into proceedings under Ss.145 and 107 Cr.P.C. The main purpose of S.107 proceedings is the preservation of peace and not to interfere with any dispute with regard to possession of land between the landlord and the tenant. It is therefore urged that the endeavour of the landlord is only to recover possession of the land forcibly from the tenant and it is incorrect and improper to invoke the provisions of S. 107 Crl. P. C. in cases of this nature. Shri Holla strongly relied on the decision of this Court, in State of Mysore v. Kenchegowda, (1963) 1 Mys.L.J. 348. in support of the said contentions.