RAGHUNATH PADHY Vs. RATNAKAR NAIK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are dealt with in one judgment as they arise out of one order passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate of Angul.

(2.) IN Angul town there was some dispute between one Ratnakar Naik who claimed to be the owner of a house and his tenant Rasanand Sahu. At about 12 noon of the 31st July 1957, Rasanand Sahu lodged a station diary entry (No. 684) at the Angul Police Station alleging that on account of some dispute his landlord Ratnakar was attempting to forcibly evict him from his house. The local police, after recording the station diary entry asked him to seek the help of the Civil Court and also gave him a warning not to commit any breach of peace. Fifteen minutes latter, Ratnakar Naik also came to the police station and lodged another station diary entry (No. 685) alleging that his tenant, Rasanand Sahu, was heavily in arrears of rent and that he (the informant) suspected that on account of the dispute between the two, Rasananda himself set fire to the house a few days before, thereby causing him heavy loss. The police had already registered a case under Section 436 Indian Penal Code. Hence, after recording the station diary entry, he was also asked by the police to seek his redress in the civil court and not to commit breach of peace. On the 1st of August 1937 occurred several incidents between the Angul police and Ratnakar Naik and his men which are the subject matter of controversy in these two revision petitions. At about 8 -15 A.M. Ratnakar appeared at the police station and stated that though he wanted to repair his house which had been damaged by fire, his tenant Rasananda would not allow him to do so. He also informed the police that he had filed a civil suit against Rasananda as early as the 22nd July 1957. The police therefore told him that as Rasananda was in possession and as Ratnakar had already filed a civil suit he should await the result of that suit and should not attempt to take forcible possession and thereby commit breach of peace.

(3.) SRI Raghunath Padhy, Circle Inspector filed Criminal Revision No. 246 of 1957 against that portion of the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate of Angul which directed the issue of summons against him under Section 166, Indian Penal Code and prayed that the entire proceeding against him be quashed. Purna Chandra Dolbehera filed Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1958, against that portion of the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate which dismissed his complaint of assault and demand of bribe by the two police officer's during the period he was in police custody. It appears that he had also filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge of Cuttack against the order -of the Sub -divisional Magistrate dismissing his complaint, but the learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere.