MULLO BAI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-6), dated 31-7-2008, by which the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 392/2007 of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had no locus standi to file the criminal revision.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Police on the ground that there was a dispute in regard to possession of an agricultural land of Survey Nos. 1450, 1451 and 1452 of area 5 bigha and 19 biswas situated at Village Bilara, Police Station Hastinapur, District Gwalior. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 17-7-2005 declared that the party No. 1-Dwarika Prasad and Damodar were in possession over the land and the authority further restrained the party No. 2-Panchoo and Ramhet, s/o of Panchoo from interfering with the possession of the party No. 1. The party No. 1-Dwarika Prasad and Damodar contended before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that they purchased the land vide registered sale-deed dated 11-4-2005 from Inderpal and Satyapal. They further contended that they had also got possession over the land and their names were also mutated as owner of the land. In the aforesaid proceedings, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Petitioner was not joined as a party. Although, the Petitioner filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge Class II for declaration and permanent injunction, she pleaded that the sale-deed executed in her name was null and void. In the aforesaid civil suit, party No. 2-Panchoo and Ramhet were added as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and party No. 1-Dwarika Prasad and Damodar were added as Defendant Nos. 8 and 9. The Plaintiff-Petitioner in the aforesaid civil suit further pleaded that her father Gadoo was the owner of the land area 17 bighas and 6 biswas situated at Village Bilara. District Gwalior including the lands of Khasra Nos. 1451, 1452 and 1450. She also pleaded that her father had four children, namely, Plaintiff and her sister Saraswati and her brothers Panchoo and Gayaram. Saraswati and Gayaram were died issueless and after death of Gayaram and Saraswati, the wife of Gayaram. Smt. Katori Bai, Plaintiff and her brother Panchoo became the owner of the land and they have one-third share in the land. She further submitted that she did not execute any sale deed in favour of anybody and some forged sale-deed was executed on behalf of her. She also filed an injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure in the aforesaid proceedings. The Trial Judge vide order dated 24-7-2006 granted an injunction in favour of the Petitioner to the effect that the Defendants be not alienated the land to other persons during the pendency of the suit. In the aforesaid suit proceedings, the Defendant Nos. 8 and 9-Dwarika Prasad and Damodar also filed temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that application was rejected by the Trial Judge vide order dated 24-7-2006.

(3.) The Petitioner in the criminal revision contended that she was a necessary party in the proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate had no power and jurisdiction to pass an order in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the matter was subjudice before the Civil Court, hence, in such circumstances, the proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure ought to had been dropped. The aforesaid criminal revision has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the Petitioner was not a party in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, she has no locus standi to file the criminal revision.