NAVI AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDISPUTEDLY Jameel Ahmad, Tasveer Ahmad, Ameer Ahmad and Navi Ahmad are the real brothers and sons of Naney. In the property in question, Jameel Ahmad, Tasveer Ahmad, Ameer Ahmad and Navi Ahmad were the co -owners; property was never partitioned either mutually or by the court of law; respondent nos. 2 to 5 are the purchasers from Jameel, one of the co -owners.

(2.) IN the present case, learned Magistrate was pleased to initiate proceedings under Section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was further pleased to attach the property under Section 146 (1) of the Code, vide order dated 13.6.2007. In a criminal revision, learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the order dated 13.6.2007, vide impugned order dated 14.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved, first party/revisionist has filed the present revision.

(3.) THE sole question is as to whether proceedings under Section 145 CrPC can be initiated when there is a dispute between the co -owners? This is the settled position of law that when there is a apprehension of breach of peace pertaining to dispute regarding the possession over the immovable property or water channel, Magistrate in a proceeding drawn under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall decide as to which of the party was in possession within two months next before the date on which the report of the police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate. If Magistrate is not able to decide that which of the party was in possession within two months next before the date on which the report of the police officer or the other information was received by the Magistrate, Magistrate may attach the property and shall leave the parties to approach the competent court to get decided their respective possession as well as title.