SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA Vs. KRISHAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 16-4-1990 passed by Sri K. K. Agarwal, then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1989, Krishan Pal and 156 others v. Subhash Chand Gupta and 45 others.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that a report was lodged by constable Siyanand at police station Medical on 7-11-1983 at 8. 45 p. m. about apprehension of breach of peace. THE matter was enquired by the police of police station Medical and the report was submitted under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in which members of first parties were Subhash Chand and 2 others and of second party were Shiv Charan and 72 others. It was alleged in the said report that Khasra plot No. 5730/5/1 belonged to Bhawani Shanker. An area of 3-14-10 was alleged to be in possession of Bhawani Shanker, and on the said land there was residence of Bhawani Shanker. Some other small houses were in possession of the tenants. THEre was dispute in respect of the land of the plot across the road and so there was apprehension of breach of peace. THE S. O. on this report prayed the Court for proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. THE preliminary order was passed by he Magistrate on 9-11-1983. THE parties filed written statements. Subhash Chand Gupta prayed for attachment of the disputed property under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. Second party filed objection against the application under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. moved by Subhash Chand. THE learned Magistrate passed order for attachment of property in dispute vide order dated 9-12-1983. However, the attachment could not be made. In the meantime 2 applications C-24/1 and C-24/5 were moved by some persons alleging therein that they were in actual possession but they were not impleaded as party. THEy prayed for impleading them as party to the suit. THE first party filed objection against the applications of third parties for impleading them on the ground that the said persons had got no locus-standi and the applications were moved in collusion with the second party and the applications were not maintainable. THE proceedings thereafter remained pending for a long time and vide order dated 13-12-1988, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications of third parties. Another application for dropping proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. dated 25-11-1983 was also rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists made only one submission before me that in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C the parties whose names find place in the police report or who have been arrayed as opposite parties in the application under Section 145 Cr. P. C, are entitled to be heard in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C, and no other person can be impleaded in such a case.