KUNJ BEHARI LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings under Section 145 CrPC along with the order dated 29-7-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi, and also the order dated 26-8-1987 (wrongly mentioned as 18-9-1987) so far as it directs continuance of the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.

(2.) THERE is a dispute between the parties regarding two shops bearing Municipal nos. 308 and 309-B situate in Sandila Town, District Hardoi. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, passed a preliminary order on 5-8-1985 under Section 145 CrPC observing that there is a dispute between the petitioners and opposite party likely to cause a breach of the peace. On the same day he passed an order for attachment of the property under Section 146 CrPC on the ground that there is imminent danger of the breach of the peace and as such it is a case of emergency. Against this the petitioners filed an objection petition for dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC on the allegations that a partition suit is pending between the parties and the shops are in exclusive possession of the objectors. THERE is no dispute between the parties about possession and there is no apprehension of the breach of the peace, so the proceedings may be dropped. This objection petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 22-3-1986 (Annexure 3) observing that there is dispute between the parties likely to cause the breach of the peace and the material placed before him does not show that the shops are joint properties. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was no justification for dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. Against this order the petitioners went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and he dismissed it on 29-7-1987. Copy of the judgment is annexure 4. He observed that the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to drop the proceedings does not suffer from any infirmity. He, however, added that if the petitioners want to get the attachment withdrawn they can move an application under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 146 CrPC. The petitioners accordingly moved an application before the learned Magistrate that, the attachment may not be withdrawn as there is no apprehension of the breach of the peace. In order to substantiate this contention it was again asserted by the petitioners that they are in possession of the shops. On this application the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate deputed the Tahsildar Sandila to make local enquiry and submit report. His report was that the petitioners are keeping their goods in the two shops and if the locks put on the doors of these shops are opened there is no possibility of the apprehension of the breach of peace and the attachment can, therefore, be withdrawn. He accordingly withdrew the attachment order and directed the parties to appear before him to lead evidence about their possession. After this order (annexure-5) the petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC to get the portion of the order relating to adducing of evidence about possession quashed. The opposite party also felt dissatisfied with the withdrawal of attachment and so he filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. That revision is pending before that court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that when the learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of the breach of the peace, he should have dropped the proceedings and should not have fixed a date for adducing evidence by the parties to prove their respective possession over the shops in dispute. LEARNED counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that the order withdrawing attachment with the observation that there is no breach of the peace was passed exparte without giving an opportunity to the opposite party and as such the entire order dated 26-8-1987 should be quashed. In my opinion, the entire order dated 26-8-1987 suffers from illegality and it is a fit case in which interference should be made in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.