RAJENDRA PRASAD MISTRY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22-9-2001, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Danapur in Case No. 65(M) of 1997 (Tr. No. 30 of 2000) and consequently the entire proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 in connection with the aforesaid case which was initiated in respect of a portion, of land pertaining to Khata No. 192, Plot No. 247,1500 sq. feet situated in village, Jalapur, Police Station-Danapur, District Patna. The Executive Magistrate has allowed the petition filed on 16-7-2001 by opposite party No. 2 after about five years of the initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code and also allowing inclusion of the boundary in the description of disputed plot which was not mentioned earlier either in the police report or in the order of the Executive Magistrate.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is bad as no boundary was mentioned to identify, the land for which the proceeding was initiated. It has further been submitted that the Executive Magistrate has gone beyond his jurisdiction by this vague order.

(3.) Perused the order, it appears that the very initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code pertaining to the disputed land without proper identification and boundary was bad in law and not proper. Even after four years of inflation of proceeding correcting the boundary of disputed land was not proper and in accordance with law. The purpose of imposing prohibitory order under these sections are meant for maintaining peace and tranquillity in cases where there is apprehension of breach of peace and not in deciding the tile. From the order itself appears that after police report initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code was started to get the possession over the disputed land which itself shows that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. The proceeding under Section 145 of the Code was without proper description and thus vitiated ab initio. The subsequent order dated 22-9-2001, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Danapur in Case No. 65(M) of 1997 (Tr. No. 30 of 2000) is hereby quashed and the petition is accordingly allowed.