JAGROOP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Through present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , the applicants desired that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. drawn up in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1991 Panchanand Pandey v, Jagroop and others, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, district Chandauli, be quashed. There has been a further prayer for quashing an order recorded under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. whereby the concerned land was directed to be attached. It was urged that the police report on which action was taken as also the report of the Tehsildar did not speak of any breach of peace and as such the Magistrate lack the initial jurisdiction to drop the aforesaid proceedings. It was further contended that there had been an order by a civil court, confirmed by the High Court, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo as regard possession.

(2.) THE proceeding was drawn up on 22-12-97 under an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, and the preliminary order indicate that the Magistrate stood satisfied from the report of the Tehsildar dated 3-12-97 and the report from the Police Officer dated 16-1-97 that both the parties were disputing over possession or land in question and there was tension at the spot. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed both the parties by his order dated 22-12-97 to appear before him and to file their written statement in support of their possession over the land in question.

(3.) THERE had been a police report as well where also long standing litigation between the parties were indicated on one side a group of Harijan were claiming the land on the basis of patta given by the Government and on the other side a non-Harijan was claiming the land. Police report indicates that the parties were directed to maintain status quo and to get the dispute resolved through court and the parties agreed to it. Police kept special watch on the situation but observed that there was no necessity of any police action as the dispute was at least 20years old.