KALPANA SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred under section 482 of the Cr.PC against the judgment dated 20.2.2006 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Criminal Motion No. 53 of 2005.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that she is the lawful owner in respect of the plot No. 82813 under Khatian No. 316 of Mouza Mazedihi. In order to protect her dwelling house, she wanted to construct a boundary wall on 31.5.2005. At that time the respondents forcibly stopped the said work. Finding no other way out the petitioner filed an application under section 144 of the Cr. PC before the ld. Magistrate at Durgapur who was pleased to call for report from the B.L. & L.R.O. and the O/C Durgapur P.S. After receiving the report, ld. Magistrate was satisfied and was pleased to start a proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC and directed the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the land in question and also directed the O/C to enforce the order. Against the said order, respondent moved the Court of the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur, who, by his impugned judgment, was pleased to set aside the order of the ld. Executive Magistrate passed in the proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC. Being dissatisfied with the said order, this revisional application has been preferred. The petitioner has claimed that the ld. Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order, as there was apprehension of the breach of piece, as it appeared from the enquiry report of the officials concerned. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge was not at all justified in ignoring those reports and in setting aside the order of the ld. Magistrate only on the ground that since the dispute is purely civil in nature so it should be decided in the appropriate civil forum. The order, as passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, being illegal, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the said order.

(3.) On the other hand, the opposite parties claimed that the ld. Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. According to them, there was a longstanding dispute going on in between the parties over the use of the pathway and as such, ld. Additional Sessions Judge was justified in observing that the said dispute should be resolved in the Civil Court. They have prayed for dismissal of the revisional application.