MANGE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 25.1.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, by which he opted to preceded under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

(2.) FROM the submissions from both the sides, it is quite clear that the parties involved in this case are litigating over the issue of possession of the land since 1963. One of the off-shoots of the litigation had been decided on 5.2.1969 by decision in Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 1967. The reading of that order clearly shows that it pertained to, in all, three pieces of land totalling 250 Bighas, which is this part in equivalent to 50 acres of land. As if not contented with that branch of litigation, the matter cropped up in the form of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and finally came up to this court by way of Criminal Misc 5905-M of 1982, which is reported in 1983 PLR 503. In that case this Court made the following observations :-

(3.) IN so far as it pertains to the merits of this case, the only question would be whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified in resorting to proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. A perusal of order passed by him indicates that he has taken into consideration the long chain of litigation between the parties. In the concluding portion, he has observed that the landholders of the two villagers are involved in the litigation, and the enquiries made by him revealed that a tension is mounting on the issue of possession of the land. As the position now stands, the question of possession has become a matter of adjudication because of the controversy raised by both the sides. This circumstance gave an indication to the Magistrate that the villagers on both the sides are likely to conflict on issue of possession, and there is a possibility of breach of peace. Section 145 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of the police Officer or upon other information that a dispute is likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land within his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing stating the grounds for his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned to attend his court and submit their respective case. By the impugned order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has thus called upon the parties to submit their case before him. While doing so, he has taken into consideration the previous litigation between the parties. It must not be lost sight of that in the past also matter had reached to the stage of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as mentioned above. In the background of that and pendency of civil matter, the Magistrate felt satisfied that he should come forward to maintain peace. The action under section 145 Cr.P.C. depends on the subjective and objective satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate. While dealing with such aspect in the revision proceedings it would not be possible always to substitute subjective and objective satisfaction by this Court. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised simply because some other view is also possible in a case. Particularly, in the case of preventive action, the Executive Magistrate should be left to his discretion to exercise his powers. All that is necessary is to ascretain whether the action taken by him has been based on certain material to satisfy himself. It should not appear to be simply a whim of the Magistrate. On perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate, I find that he has applied his mind and formed his opinion.