SHIVSHANKAR GURJAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed under section 482 CrPC and is directed against the order passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No.339/2009 dated 28.5.2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to interfere in order passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate in CaseNo.575/2006 under section 145 CrPC dated 30.9.2009.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this application are that the respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh filed a complaint under section 145 CrPC against the present applicant and respondent No.2. While the complaint was pending, the present applicant filed an application for spot inspection by Commissioner. The application is Annexure -1. The respondent No.2 filed reply to this application which is Annexure -2. As the respondent No.2 did not raise any serious objection on the application, the same was allowed and a letter was issued to Tahsildar, Ratlam City on 2.2.2009 which is Annexure -3, by which the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate directed the Tahsildar to inspect the spot submit a report. Tahsildar conducted an inspection of the spot and filed his report which is Annexure -4. As no notice was given to the present applicant he filed an objection which is Annexure -5. The objections were disallowed on 30.9.2009 by order Annexure -7. Against this order a revision was filed and by the impugned order the revisional Court dismissed the application by order dated 28.5.2010 which is Annexure -8, in which the revisional Court observed that no revision lies against the present order as this was only an interim order.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the present application is filed on the grounds, inter alia, (i) that the order passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate disallowing the objection raised by the present applicant was a non speaking order and, therefore, liable to be set aside, (ii) The report filed by the Tahsildar is beyond his jurisdiction he was not directed to suggest who is entitled to possession of the disputed shop put he recommended that the possession of the shop may be handed over to respondent No.2. (iii) That the present applicant was not given any notice before the spot inspection was conducted and on these grounds he prays that the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate disallowing his objection may be set aside a fresh spot inspection may be conducted.