AMRISHCHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was a party in the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') which were initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Manikpur Police Station to the Executive Magistrate, Vasai. The applicant and one Ashok Kumar Agarwal were the party no. 2 while the respondent no. 2 herein was the party no. 1 in the proceedings. After holding an inquiry into the matter, the Executive Magistrate, Vasai, declared that the disputed property was in possession of the party no. 1 i.e. respondent no. 2 herein. The Magistrate also directed that 'the party no. 1 should not be obstructed from using the disputed property'. Being aggrieved by this order passed by the Magistrate, the applicant approached the Court of Sessions at Vasai by filing an application for revision. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vasai, however, dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers, and praying that the order passed by the Magistrate under the provisions of section 145 of the Code, as also the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision application be set aside.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.H.H. Ponda, learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no. 2. I have also heard Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State.

(3.) THE immovable property which is the subject of dispute consists of land of vast area of about 15 lakh sq.feet consisting of Plot nos. A, A1 and B, situate at Pereira layout, Vasai. Civil disputes between the parties with respect to the ownership and possession of the said land which, as aforesaid, is of a vast area, are pending in Civil Courts. However, since the police had reported to the Executive Magistrate that the dispute between the parties was likely to cause breach of peace and, that therefore, it was necessary to initiate the proceedings under section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate held an inquiry.