LAWS(PAT)-2000-7-109

ABDUL MAZID Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 19, 2000
ABDUL MAZID Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9.9.1997 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the proceeding initiated under Section 145, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 has been dropped. It is stated that the impugned order is vitiated in law, inasmuch as the land in question is wholly different as in the suit the plot No. 217 under Khata No. 47 whereas in the present proceeding, plot No. 216 under Khata No. 2 is involved and as such the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 61 of 1986 are not applicable in the instant proceeding. It is also stated that there still exists apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with regard to the possession over the land in question and the proceeding should have been continued.

(2.) On the other hand, the show cause reply on behalf of the opposite parties filed in which it has been stated that there is no illegality in the impugned order as toe learned Magistrate has rightly dropped the proceeding as per direction of the Hprrtjle Court on the basis of judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 61 of 1986. It is also averred that the judgment and decree of plot No. 217 was considered and upheld all the documents of title and possession relating to plot No. 216 which is the subject-matter of the proceeding as from all the sides the land under plot No. 217 has been surrounded by the lands of plot No. 216. It is further stated that there is not apprehension of breach of peace at the spot as no any report from the police was received to indicate about the existence of apprehension of breach of peace and as such, the Court below has rightly dropped the proceeding under Section 145(5) of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

(3.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. N.N. Tiwary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties.