HAR CHARAN SINGH Vs. MUKHTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. In proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. S. D. M. , Nagina, Bijnor passed an order on 26-12-90 with respect to Khasra Plot No. 80 in village Turakpur, Pargana, Afzalgarh, Bijnor stating that on the basis of the report of Police Station Afzalgarh dated 14-10-90 that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He withdrew the attachment made under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. but continued the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The attached crop was also released in favour of Har Charan Singh. Aggrieved by this order Mukhtar Singh the other party filed Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1991 which was allowed by VIHth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijnore on 18-2-91. The order dated 26-12-90 was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The revisional court was of the opinion that if there was no apprehension of breach of peace then even the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were incompetent because the jurisdiction to take recourse to proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. depends upon the existence of apprehension of breach of peace and if there is no such apprehension then proceed ings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are incompetent. The crop was attached and given in the supurdagi of the supurdgar. By the order in question the crop was released from the supurdagi of the supurdgar and the Station Officer was directed to hand it over to the person from whose possession it was attached. The revisional court was of the opinion that by directing the release of crop in favour of one party while continuing the proceedings regarding possession on the Magistrate has passed contradictory orders. This also appears to be correct. If he was of the opinion that the person from whose possession the crop was attached was in possession of the plots in question then there was no point to continue the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. it may also be noted that no evidence regarding possession was recorded but still the crop was ordered to be released in favour of the party from whose possession it was said to have been attached. The other party had contested the claim of the other party about his possession.

(2.) THE Magistrate appears to have passed an order which is contradictory in itself. THE revisional court therefore rightly allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 26-12-90 passed by the Magistrate and directed him to proceed in accord ance with law. THE revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .