STATE Vs. SM TUGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. started by the respondent herself on the allegation that she was in possession of the house in dispute and some landed property and that there was a dispute between her and Sob Nath about them which was likely to cause a breach of the peace, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Soraon on 6-7-1950 held that Sob Nath was in possession of the house in dispute and entitled to remain in possession until evicted in due course of law and ordered the respondent not to disturb his possession in the meantime. The propery seems to have been attached under Section 145 (4 ). On the case being decided in favour of Sob nath, it was released from attachment and possession was given to him by the police on 1-12-50. On 3-11-50 the respondent filed a civil suit regarding the house in dispute. She applied for a temporary injunction and the civil court on 18-11-50 issued an interim injunction that status quo should be maintained. The order was served upon Sob Nath on 30-11-50 two days before he obtained possession from the police. On 30-1-51 Sob Nath made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who had passed the order under Section 145 (6), for prosecution, of the respondent under Section 188, i. P. C. on the allegation that she entered the house in dispute again and again in spite of the order. The application was pent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Teh-sildar for enquiry and report. He reported that she lived in the same house and that there was every likelihood of a breach of the peace and recommended proceedings under Section 107 of the Code. On receipt of the report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Section 188, I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution v examined Sob Nath, Brij Mohan, Ram Padarath and H. C. Manzur Alam. H. C. Manzur Alam deposed that he handed over possession over the house to Sob Nath on 30-11-50 under the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that he had subsequently met the respondent and informed her of the fact and of the injunction that she should not interfere with sob Natti's possession. The other three stated about Sob Nath's possession over the house and interference with it by the respondent after 6-7-50, Sob Nath deposed that in the month of March 1951 the respondent quarrelled with him, abused him and threw out his articles from the house and that she goes to the house and quarrels with him every eighth or tenth day. In cross-examination he deposed that she entered into the house five or seven months after possession was delivered to him and that she frequently went to the house subsequently. There is nothing in his deposition which would make it improper to rely upon it. Brij Mohan deposed that the respondent goes into the house and stays there after closing the door. On one occasion he heard exchange of abuses between the parties. Ram Padarath deposed that the respondent enters into the house, and threatens to live in it. He saw her visit the house ten or twelve times, but no quarrel took place in his presence. On one occasion he saw her throwing away utensils. On the first occasion she lived in the house for three or four days.

(3.) THE respondent denied having disobeyed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. She stated that she never entered the house. She examined Ram Prasad, Shitla Din, Basdeo and dukhi in defence. They supported her statement. When the house was under attachment during tbe pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 it was entrusted to D. W. Shitla Din. His statement that the house is still in his possession, that it is locked, that he has got the key, that nobody ever took possession of it from him, and that Sob Nath never got possession is a tissue of lies. He himself signed the report prepared by H. C. Manzur Alam about the delivery of possession to Sob Nath. Ram Prasad is related to the respondent and no reliance can be placed on his negative evidence. He admitted that the police had taken possession of the house from Shitla Din, but added that it is in possession of nobody, is still under attachment and is locked up by the police. He is also a liar. His statement contradicts Shitla Din's and there is no doubt that both of them are telling lies. Basudeo Prasad's statement is also of a negative character. Dukhi stated that the house is locked and is still under attachment; this is also a lie. The Sub-Divi-sional Magistrate has released the house from attachment and delivered possession of it to Sob Nath. The civil court did not attach the house, it only ordered that 'status quo' should be maintained. It did not mean that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not release the house from attachment or deliver possession of it to Sob Nath. It appears that the respondent in her plaint claimed that she was in possession of the house and wanted her possession to be maintained so the order of the civil court that status quo should be maintained meant nothing but that she should be left in possession. That order could be complied with only if she was in possession previously; if she was not, there was no question of her being left in possession.