BALDEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN village Bhathat, Police Station Gulariha, district Gorakhpur a bazar is held on every Sunday on certain plots of land. Syed Sajjad Ali and Syed Jawwad Ali had granted an annual Theka of the bazar to one Gobri for the year 1972-73. Mewa was the Kithanadar on behalf of Gobri during this period. This Theka came to an end on September 30, 1973. Thereafter Syed Sajjad Ali and Syed Jawwad Ali gave the Theka to Baldeo and others for the year 1973-74 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000 which was paid by the Thekedars. Gobri attempted to realise dues and fees from the traders. A civil suit was, therefore, filed and an injunction order obtained which restrained Gobri from realising fee from the traders. Thereafter Gobri filed a complaint in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar under Section 145, Cr. P. C. A copy of Gobri's application was sent to the Station Officer, Police Station Gularilha. It appears that a report was also lodged by Mewa at the Police Station and along with it a medical report was also filed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate perused these papers and being satisfied that there was an apprehension of the breach of peace regarding Tehbazari rights of the Bhathat Bazar, he passed a preliminary order on 12th October, 1973 and also directed the Station Officer to attach the Tahbazari and give it in the Supardgi of an independent person who shall keep proper accounts of each Bazar held on Sundays and submit the same to the court when required.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby Baldeo and other preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge who has made a reference to this Court for setting aside the impugned order. The Sessions Judge was of the view that the dispute in question related to the rights of rival Thekedara to collect fee from the traders who held a bazar on the land in question. There is no dispute with regard to the possession of the land itself. As such in the opinion of the Sessions Judge, Section 145, Cr. P. C. was not attracted, as this section concerns itself with disputes leading to an apprehension of the breach of peace with regard to immovable property only.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. In this connection it would be pertinent to quote the relevant portion of Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. which runs as follows: