BRIJENDRA KUMAR JHA Vs. AMAR NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are connected with the common order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the Learned Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Revision No.41 of 2010 and therefore, both the revisions are decided by the present common order.

(2.) THE applicant of Criminal Revision No.873 of 2012 has challenged the impugned order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judge to First Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Revision No.41/2010 whereby the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the SDM, Harda in case under Section 145 of Cr.P.C was altered.

(3.) THE facts relating to the present revisions in short are that the deceased Chandrakala was the owner of the present house. She kept the applicant Brijendra Kumar Jha as a tenant in small portion of the house. On 14.5.2010, the deceased Chandrakala expired without leaving any successor of first degree. It is alleged that her cremation was done by the applicant Basant Kumar because the father of the applicant Basant Kumar had helped her and accepted the deceased as a sister and therefore, Basant Kumar was looking after her and hence, after her death lock and keys of the house were with the applicant Basant Kumar. The respondents Amarnath Singh and Amit Kumar Singh have claimed themselves to be successor of deceased Chandrakala on the basis of a will and they moved an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C before the SDM, Harda on 7.7.2010. The learned SDM vide order dated 12.7.2012 passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Cr.P.C and thereafter, on 16.7.2010 passed an order under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C whereby a receiver was appointed. Again on 13.8.2010 the SDM passed a final order in the case by which the entire property was released and it was directed that its possession be given to Basant Kumar. The respondents no.1 and 2 have challenged that order before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the SDM.