SUSHILA JERMANI DASS Vs. RASHID ALI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at length and in detail and Sri Ved Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the impugned order word by word. The crux of the point is that for the same piece of land over which two rooms and a verandah, latrine and bathroom etc. are existing, is claimed by the revisionist and she claimed to be in peaceful possession on the strength of the will executed by her husband and she alleges that the second party - opposite parties are trying to disturb her and forcibly take possession of the said property. She has gone alleging to the extent that the life of the revisionist is also at risk at the hands of the opposite parties. The matter was raised earlier also before the courts twice but every time the revisional court has set aside the order of initiating the proceedings under Sec. 145 (i) Criminal Procedure Code. In spite of that this third proceedings has been initiated and the court below has noted in the impugned judgement that every time the police and the Executive Magistrate are initiating the proceedings and harassing the other side without any rhyme or reason. In this way it is direct interference in the court's proceedings. It is only a wastage of courts time and a direct contempt of the court's order, when the Additional Sessions Judge has given reasoned order setting aside the Ist proceedings under Sec. 145 (i) Criminal Procedure Code then there was not justification for the same alleged dispute second time and again this time also the same dispute is alleged in the notice under Sec. 145 (i) Criminal Procedure Code. In this way it is at the instance of the first party, the opposite parties are dragged to the court of law without any reason. If she is in peaceful possession over the property there is no question of initiating proceedings under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code to make the property disputed. In view of her own claim that she is in peaceful possession over the land and property why she is making an attempt to create dispute which will harm her It the property is not in dispute there is no question of initiating the proceedings under Sec. 145 (i) Criminal Procedure Code. If she has some trouble from other side3 and apprehends risk to her life and property then she is free to initiate criminal proceedings before the competent court of law to maintain peace and law and order. In no circumstances a proceeding under Sec. 145 (i) Criminal Procedure Code will be legal. Under these circumstance there is no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the revisional court. This revision petition has no merit at all and it is accordingly dismissed. The order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 7.11.1986 is vacated.