LALA RAM Vs. NATHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has come forward with a prayer for quashing the order of the Magistrate as well as of the revisional court upholding such order. THE Magistrate has held that it is a case of joint possession hence proceeding under Section 145 CrPC is not entertainable and has dismissed the application of the applicant:. THE revisional court also came to the same conclusion. It is urged that in earlier mutation proceedings both sides were parties and mutation was done: in favour of Puran Lal and the applicant was treated to be in exclusive possession as son of Puran. THE other side Nathi Lal is brother of Puran. Reliance was placed upon the case of Vinai Kumar v. Om Prakash, 1980 ACrR 4 (a single Judge pronouncement) in which it was held that revenue court deciding the mutation is competent court within the meaning of Section 146 CrPC and effects should be given to its decision. THEre is a leading Division Bench case, Kalap Din v. State, 1970 AWR 410 and in that case the question whether decision of any civil court, revenue court etc. are binding in a proceeding undeT Section 145 CrPC was considered threadbare and it was held that the Magistrate has independent jurisdiction to proceed irrespective of any finding of the civil or revenue court though they are just a piece of evidence. In fact this view was also taken in the case of Mst.Hosnaki v. State, 1955 AWR 654 and in the case of Jafar Husain v. State, 1969 AWR 199. It is significant to note that a Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court also took such view and it was urged that the case of Hosnaki v. State (supra) as well as the ease of Tikunda v. State, the Full Bench case of Rajasthan High Court, ILR 11 Rajasthan (1961) 657 need consideration and his lordship in the case of Kalap Din v. State (supra) held that it is not so and that they do not require reconsideration. In the Full Bench case of Rajasthan it was held that civil proceedings are immaterial.

(2.) AS regards the actual finding the matter stands concluded by a finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate and. the revisional court discussing the evidence and giving reasons and consequently no interference on such finding of fact can be made in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The application is summarily rejected. Application rejected.