REV SAMSON KORADA Vs. ALUA MISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl. Misc Case arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short, 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the order dated 12.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi, in Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2004 confirming the order dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate., Parlakhemundi in Misc. Case No. 240 of 1990, in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner was not a party in either of the Courts below. Opposite party No. 1 was the first party and opposite party No. 2 was the second party before the S.D.M., Parlakhemundi. The first party initiated a proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. since there was a dispute with regard to the appointment of Amod Kumar Pani, the present opposite party No. 2 as the Paster in the Baptist Church at village Jhalarsingh between the two groups of the same village. It was prayed therein to allow the present opposite party No. 3, Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani, to conduct and regulate the offering of prayer as well to take over the management of the said Church from the petitioner (opposite party No. 1). Subsequently the proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. In an interim order the S.D.M. directed the petitioner -opposite party No. 1 to hand over the management of the Church to the present opposite party No. 3. When the matter stood thus, the present opposite party No. 3 without leave of the Court appointed one Lohit Singh as Paster. The S.D.M. dropped the proceeding on 7.9.1999 and directed Utkal Baptist Mandali Sammilani (present opp. Party No. 3) to deliver possession of the disputed Church to the second party (opposite party No. 2). Lohit Singh was also directed to hand over the keys of the said Church to the second party within one month.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with this order, Samson Korada preferred Crl. Revision, before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi. Admittedly, the petitioner therein was not a party before the S.D.M. The Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision holding that to set aside the impugned order is in effect would be setting aside the order dated 7.9.1999 which had already reached finality and that the petitioner had no locus stand to challenge the impugned order.