BINOD NAIK Vs. SANTOSH DEHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Padhi learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the application for revision.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 29-1-1997 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1997 under Sec. 144, Cr PC by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhenkanal.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhenkanal and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhenkanal dropped the proceedings without hearing the petitioner. The proceedings have been dropped on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has perused a report of the O.I.C., Town P.S. regarding the action taken by him in respect of any breach of peace between the parties. It appears that police warned both the parties against breach of peace. It was further recorded that the dispute arose out of a piece of Government land. Since the S.D.M. was satisfied that there was no apprehension of breach of peace, and he was not satisfied for restraining either of the parties for disturbance of public tranquillity and therefore S.D.M. dropped the proceeding under Sec. 144, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29-1-1997. It does not appear from the order that the S.D.M., Dhenkanal while dropping the proceeding, heard the petitioner. It is desirable that while application under Sec. 144, Cr.P.C. was initiated at the instance of the petitioner, before dropping the proceeding he should have been heard. The revision petition has been field on 26-3-1997 and has been listed today.