PHRAS LAKHON Vs. SAROT LANGNIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 17.4.2000 passed by Smtti R. Lyngdoh, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai in CR Case No. 80 of 2000 under section 200 CrPC is the subject matter under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is the owner and has all along been in possession in a coal quarry which is a Raid land and he had obtained permission to extract coal from the said land in the year 1981 but the respondent who claimed to be the owner of the said coal quarry started disturbing the petitioner's work of extraction of coal from the said quarry and, accordingly, the petitioner lodged an Ejahar/FIR with the police on 22.5.1998 who in turn submitted a report to the Court concerned which initiated a proceeding under section 1077 145 CrPC and directed the police to attach the disputed land prohibiting the parties from entering thereon vide order dated 22.10.1998 passed by learned Executing Magistrate, Jaintia hills District, Jowai in CT Case No. 18/98 (Pt.I) under section 145/107 CrPC and, while the petitioner was preparing for filing a revision petition against the said order of attachment, the respondent filed a revision petition before the learned Addl Deputy Commissioner at Jowai under Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1998 and the revisional Court after hearing the parties quashed the order of attachment so also the proceedings under section 107/145 CrPC vide order dated 3.11.1999 on the ground that the case between parties is of civil nature and held that the parties can seek relief from a competent civil Court and, subsequently, at the behest of the elders of the Elaka, a settlement was made to the effect that the parties thereto shall operate their respective coal field without disturbing each other however, the respondent lodged another false complaint with the police on 23.2.2000 alleging that the petitioner has extracted coal from the respondent's land and where the matter was under investigation, the Court below namely, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai registered a case being CR No. 80 of 2000 on the complaint made by the respondent on 27.3.2000 against the petitioner and other 4 (four) persons and the learned Court below issued the warrant of arrest and, accordingly, the police were after the petitioner in connection with he case and, subsequently, the petitioner along with another person Smti Hunris Lakhon, the accused No. 2, appeared before the learned Court below along with their counsel and sought for grant of bail to them and, thereafter, the learned Court below passed the impugned order dated 17.4.2000 thus allowing the petitioner and the said person to go on bail on furnishing the amount of Rs. 8,000/- each only with one surety each of the like amount of the following conditions: (1) Not to enter the coal mine nor extract coal, (2) Not to threaten the complainant and witnesses, and the learned Court below further directed the SP, Jaintia Hills District to seize the coal mine positively at the earliest and submit the report of the action taken on or before the next date i.e. 23.5.2000. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. GS Massar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law inasmuch as, the learned Court below exceeded its jurisdiction while imposing certain conditions to the extent that the petitioner and the accused No. 2 shall not enter the coal mine in order to extract coal and, apart from it, the direction made by the learned Court below to the Superintendent of Police, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai to seize the coal and coal mine positively is against the established principle of law laid down under Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. GS Massar went on to contend that the learned Court below acted like a civil Court and passed the impugned under in the form of grant of injunction under the impugned order which the learned Court below has no jurisdiction to pass it.