JAS RAM Vs. MOHAN CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat The present revisions have been filed against the judgment dated 26-06-1996, passed by Sri M. M. Kulsresth, the then, Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, al lowing the above Criminal Revisions and quashing the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. and directing to continue attach ment of the disputed property till the competent court determines the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof.

(2.) BRIEF fact as emerges to this case are that the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. in respect of the disputed plot started on the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Champawat dated 18-12-1987. It was reported therein that on 14/15-11-1987, the respondents, Mohan Chandra and Govind Chandra dispossessed the revisionist-Jas Ram from the land in dispute and thereafter the S. D. M. passed the preliminary or der on 07-01-1988 and proceeded with the case and he finally decided the matter and it was found that the present revisionists were in possession over the disputed property. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded the said matter to the trial court by direct ing to the court to give the clearcut findings regarding the possession of the present revisionists as has been pro vided under the provision of Cr. P. C. Thereafter the S. D. M. separated the three cases and passed a fresh prelimi nary order on 11-03-1991 and there after the parties adduced the evidence. The S. D. M. also directed the matter in favour of the revisionists and the re spondents feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred revision before the Ses sions Judge. The Sessions Judge while disposing of the revisions observed that the learned Magistrate had failed to record the clear cut findings with regard to the possession over the disputed plot. It was further observed that the matter is lingering since 1987 to till date. The learned Sessions Judge found it appropriate without giving any find ing with the apprehension of breach of peace at the spot and directed that the property continued to be remained attached and the parties were directed to move to the competent court.

(3.) IN view of the above proposition of law, the matter needs to be scruti nized. The judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge did not disclose as to whether there was any apprehension of breach of peace among the parties with regard to the immovable property. The learned Ses sions Judge has decided the proceed ings of Section 145 Cr. P. C. as indicated above. The parties have been litigating since 1987 and it is not reported there after no dispute arose in between the parties and as such, I am of the view that there is no apprehension of breach of peace among the parties and as such, the initial ingredient of initiating proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. is lacking in this matter and the revision is liable to be disposed of on the same term.