NANTURAM NASKAR Vs. AJIT KUMAR MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Nanturam Naskar and three others (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) against Ajit Kumar Mondal (hereinafter referred to as O.P. No. 1) and the State of West Bengal (to be mentioned as O.P. No. 2). The relevant facts leading to this application in short are as follows :-

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order the petitioners have preferred this revisional application challenging the order as illegal, invalid and unsustainable. It is contended that the learned Executive Magistrate has admitted in the impugned order that a Civil Suit was pending between the parties over the disputed land before the learned 3rd Munsif and an interim order had been passed by the learned Munsif directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession and the learned Magistrate fell into an error of law by appointing the B.L.L.R.O., Baruipur as the receiver in respect of the disputed land. According to the petitioner, the learned Executive Magistrate committed a wrong by not taking into consideration the settled legal position that where there has been an order of injunction passed by a Civil Court in respect of any land between the same parties a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. cannot be legally maintainable and no such order can be passed by the Executive Magistrate bearing upon the state of possession in respect of that land. The petitioners' contention is that the entire proceeding before the Executive Magistrate has become infructuous in view of the pendency of the Civil suit and the order passed by the Civil Court and on that ground it is liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party is that when the Civil Court has passed an order of injunction in respect of the very same land in a civil suit between the same parties, then the hands of the learned Executive Magistrate are tied and he cannot pass an order like this imposing restriction on the parties' right to enjoy the same in their own way.