BACHANRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come forward with a prayer that the immoveable property in question be restored to his possession. THE facts of this case may be briefly stated. In a proceeding under Section 145, CrPC, the Magistrate passed a preliminary order and also directed an emergency attachment under Section 146, CrPC, further observing that as he is unable to dispose of the matter, the parties may have their right of possession determined by a court of competent civil jurisdiction. It would appear that the police made a report that attachment has been made on 18-1-1981, It is also not disputed that meanwhile any Supurdar was not appointed. On 20-1-1981 the revisional court passed an order, while admitting the revision, that the operation of the Magistrate's order under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC is stayed. THEreafter no Receiver was appointed, as further proceedings remained stayed.

(2.) SOME interesting developments took place later. A report was lodged in the police that the present applicant hay broken open the lock placed by the police at the time of attachment and has taken wrongful possession. The police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 188 and 488, IPC, against the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons. To cut short, ultimately the matter went up in revision and the revisional court held that the entire proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate were barred under Section 195, CrPC, and actually it was the Magistrate, before whom the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 CrPC, were conducted, who could launch a prosecution by filing a complaint and not any other court. The revisional court in that proceedings under section 188 and 488, IPC, directed that moveable properties of the applicant be restored to him, but as regards the immoveable property the present applicant should approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, meaning thereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before whom the proceeding is pending. Under Section 195, CrPC, it was the Magistrate alone who could have launched a proceeding under Section 188, IPC, and not any other court. So it was rightly observed that in the matter concerned the Sub-Divisional Magistrate be approached.

(3.) THE application is, therefore, rejected, but it will be open for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to examine the whole position as it existed on 18-1-1981 including the matter of placing any lock by the police or otherwise and the matter of any attachment or otherwise on that date. This may be done by the Magistrate as soon as any application is preferred and the Magistrate will try to dispose of the matter concerning this aspect within six weeks.