YASHWANT Vs. SACHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 29-6-2007 passed in Criminal case No. 466/07 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Indore, appointing the receiver in respect of a disputed property, which is a Church, known as "masih Mandir" situated at 61, Shradhanand Marg, Indore. A criminal revision was also filed by the petitioner before 9th AS J, bearing Cr. R. No. 573/07, which was dismissed by that Court on 11-7-2007, confirming the order passed by learned Sub Divisional: magistrate with certain modifications.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Sr. Advocate Shri Jai Singh assisted by Shri A. S. Rathore, Advocate submitted that the disputed property is a Church known as "masih Mandir" and was constructed by Presbyterian church in the year 1926. The Presbyterian Society was constituted in the year 1885 and the then Governor General, Central India allotted a piece of land to this society for the purpose of construction of a Church and with the help of donations given by members of the society, the Church was constructed. From the year 1926 Presbyterian Church, Indore is conducting religious activities in the Church and is maintaining the same. It has been submitted that respondent no. 1, obtained permission for performing prayers in the said Church from the presbyterian Church and for that purpose license fee was also being paid by them. It has been submitted that earlier also dispute was raised by some persons regarding the same Church, regarding which a civil suit was filed, which was ultimately dismissed. It has also been submitted that proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. PC were also filed by Police Sanyogitaganj in the year 1988 and in those proceedings ultimately in criminal revision petitioner and Secretary of presbyterian Church were found competent persons to have possession over the property of the Church. It has also been submitted that learned Magistrate has not given any finding to the effect that there was an emergence situation justifying immediate attachment of the property and appointment of receiver. It has been submitted that the property is a religious place and is being used by the members of Christian Community to observe prayer etc. every day. It has also been submitted that the order which has been passed by learned Magistrate is not at all a speaking order and nothing has been mentioned in it to show that on what basis learned Magistrate was satisfied that it is a fit case in which order under Section 146 of Cr. PC should be passed.

(3.) WHEREAS, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that there was serious dispute regarding the property between the parties and looking to that dispute if order of attachment and order of appointment of a receiver has been passed by learned Magistrate, then there is no illegality in it and it is not required to be interfered with.