PHOOLCHAND Vs. JAIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not being disputed that on a report filed by police station Moti Nagar, Sagar, a criminal case bearing No. 18/2000 was registered in the Court of City Magistrate, Sagar, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which property situated in Mangalgiri locality was in dispute between both these parties. A perusal of photocopy of certified copy of the order dated 18th June, 2001 passed by City Magistrate, Sagar reveals that on the basis of aforesaid report, the preliminary order was passed on 24th October, 2000. On 28th November, 2000, party No. 1 (respondents) put forth their claim in writing. Then on 12th December, 2000, written reply was filed on behalf of petitioners No. 5 to 14. Thereafter, a written reply is stated to have been filed on behalf of petitioners Nos.1, 4 and 15 also without referring the date On consideration of the various litigations which were till then fought by these parties and their respective claims, the City Magistrate, Sagar concluded as follows, which was in challenge before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 156/2001 ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...

(2.) THUS , it is noted that without deciding the case on merits, the City Magistrate disposed of the proceeding on the ground of pendency of a civil suit between the parties, in respect of this disputed property.

(3.) SINCE the order of dropping of proceeding on account of pendency of a civil suit was held to be unlawful and arbitrary, the Sessions Judge was required to remand the case back to the Court of City Magistrate for proceeding with the case, as per law, from the stage at which it was dropped. Since the written claims of both the sides are admittedly received by the City Magistrate, in addition to the papers submitted on their behalf, City Magistrate, Sagar was further required to be directed to ask both the parties to produce the evidence in support of their claims as provided in sub section (4) of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then the case was not disposed of on merits by City Magistrate and hence the learned Sessions Judge was not required to express any opinion on the fact of possession, which he did.