MOSSAMAT BIBI KURAISA Vs. RAMESHWAR RAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Buxar, dated 20.1.1972 starting a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter to be referred as the Code, in respect of plot nos. 160 and 168 of Khata no. 82 in village Mishraulia, P.S. Buxar. The petitioner is the first party and Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are the Second Party in the proceeding. The relevant facts leading to the initiation of the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code are these. The petitioner auction purchased the land in question on 8.6.1971 in execution of a money decree obtained against Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are sons of Opposite Party No. 3. The petitioner obtained delivery of possession over the plots in question through civil courts on 7.7.72. It is said that having obtained delivery of possession the petitioner grew paddy crops in the lands. On 17.11.72 the petitioner filed a petition before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Buxar stating that the members of the Opposite Party along with others were threatening that they would harvest the paddy crops forcibly. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Sub -divisional Magistrate to issue directions to the police to help her in harvesting the paddy crops. She was prepared to deposit the cost of the armed police. The Sub -divisional Magistrate passed the following order on her petition: - -

(2.) Another petition was filed before the Sub -divisional Magistrate on 21.11.72 on behalf of the petitioner stating that when the petitioner went to the land after the order, dated 17.11.72, had been passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, she found the members of the Opposite Party harvesting the crops in haste. She immediately informed the Buxar Police about it. It was further stated in that petition that the police visited the spot and seized 185 bundles of harvested paddy in the field and 34 bundles of harvested paddy in the khalihan of the Opposite Party. Paddy crops were still standing in more than two bighas and according to the petitioner, they were under the protection of the police.

(3.) On the same date (21.11.1972) a petition was filed before the Sub -divisional Magistrate on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 stating that he was in peaceful possession of the two plots in question; that he had grown paddy crops in both the fields and that he had already harvested the paddy crops from plot no. 160. When the paddy crops standing in plot no. 168 were about to be harvested the police reached there and drove out his labourers. According to the Opposite Party the act of the police was unwarranted. The Sub -divisional Magistrate was, therefore, requested to prevent the police action in order to maintain the peace.