GORELAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. C. Deepak, J. Heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate with the assistance of Sri C. S. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sriram Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this criminal misc. writ petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of the impugned orders dated 30-6-2003 and 25-4-2005 passed by the Courts below in a case proceedings under Sections 145/146 Code of Criminal Procedure relating to certain plots situated in Village Oraha and Ballen within the limit of Police Station Atarra, District Banda.

(3.) THE petitioners filed objection and challenged the validity of the order of attachment with their say that Smt. Raniya/respondent No. 2 is not the widow of Shiv Darshan but she is dead and the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute. Both the parties led evidence in support of their claim and the learned S. D. O. going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Smt. Raniya is the widow of Shiv Darshan. She is alive and she is in possession over the said land. THE S. D. O. has further mentioned in his judgment dated 30-6-2003 that a fraud was played with the relevant revenue records by Laxman/the father of the petitioners to show that Raniya was dead. It may be relevant to mention in this very connection that by the order of the then District Magistrate relating to such fraud a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC was registered against the above-named Laxman to remove the controversy with regard to the survivalness of Smt. Raniya. An inquiry was also conducted by Sri Vijay Shanker Pandey, the Divisional Commissioner and he also came to the conclusion that Smt. Raniya is the widow of Shiv Darshan. She is alive and submitted his report on 4-9-1999. Smt. Raniya is a old widow, helpless and illiterate village woman. THE petitioners made their possible efforts to dispossess her from the land in dispute. THE evidence on record and the prevailing circumstance indicate that there was apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the land in dispute which mandata for the initiation of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. including the proceedings 107/116 Cr. P. C.