LAWS(CAL)-1984-2-39

JAGANNATH MONDAL Vs. NANDALAL SARDAR

Decided On February 22, 1984
JAGANNATH MONDAL Appellant
V/S
Nandalal Sardar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application (Criminal Revision No. 1547 of 1982) is directed against an order dated 29 -6 -82, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, in case No. M. F. 550 of 1982 in an application under Section 144 Cr. P. C. filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 1. The learned Magistrate on that date directed the J.L.R. O., Mathurapur (S) to cause an inquiry and report by 17 -9 -1982 and also directed the O/C of the relevant police station to maintain peace in the meantime. Thereafter the present petitioners have made this application for quashing of the said proceedings under Section 144, Cr. P.C.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the opposite party No. 1 is making successive applications under Section 144 Cr. P. C. only with the intention of harassing the petitioners, although the said opposite party has no manner of any right, title or possessory interest in the disputed land as a bargadar. The previous application of the opposite party No. 1 under Section 144 Cr. P.C. in respect of the same plot of land and on the same grounds was rejected by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour on 20 -8 -81 after he had considered an inquiry report which he had called for from the J.L.R.O. The petitioners have annexed copies of the orders dated 10 -6 -1981 and 20 -8 -1981 as Annexure 'A' to the petition and the copy of the said inquiry report filed on behalf of the J.L.R.O. as Annexure A -l to the petition. The report contained in Annexure A -l clearly states that the opposite party No. l has no manner of right, title and interest in the disputed land as a bargadar and there was no apprehension of breach of the peace at the time.

(3.) THE learned Advocates appearing for the opposite party No. 1 as well as for the State (O. P. No. .2) have both submitted that the impugned order dated 29 -6 -1982 which is sought to be quashed in the present application has already spent its force by efflux of time and the Rule has become infructuous.