RAJ KUMAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dtd. 17/5/2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-II, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision Case No. 547 of 2015 and order dtd. 17/7/2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga in M.R. Case No. 1251 of 2015.

(2.) The proceeding before the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated on the report of Officer-in-charge, Sonki O.P. bearing D.R. No. 183A of 2015, whereby Officer-in-charge had reported that in regard of the land as mentioned below situated in Mouza-Hasanpur, Thana No.- 651, Police Station- Bahadarpur Sonki O.P., District- Darbhanga, there is dispute between Harsh Kumar Prasad Singh and Raj Kumar Prasad Singh as well as Nand Kumar Prasad on account of dispute regarding title and possession of the landed property bearing Khata No. 136, Khesra No. 168(N)/331, 332(O), 170(N)/333, 334(O), 172(N)/330(O), 339(N)/323,324(O), measuring area 60 decimal, 27 decimal, 78 decimal and 43 Acre 16 decimal respectively. Officer-in-charge had reported that on account of claim and counter claim to the land in question, there is apprehension of breach of piece. In view of the aforesaid report of Officer-in-charge, Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga converted the proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C. into proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. holding that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is possibility of breach of peace and, hence, for permanent solution of the dispute, proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. is required to be initiated. Against the aforesaid order dtd. 17/7/2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga, the petitioner herein preferred Cr. Revision bearing No. 547 of 2015. However after hearing both the parties, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-II, Darbhanga upheld the order dtd. 17/7/2015 passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in questions is in possession of the petitioner. This land has come in the share of the petitioner after partition in the family. He further submits that even otherwise there is no occasion for initiating proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. because this extraordinary jurisdiction under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated only in circumstances of apprehension of breach of public peace on account of forceful dispossession of the landed property. But even the report of the police or the impugned order passed by Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga, do not disclose any such circumstances which may lead to apprehension of breach of public peace on account of forceful dispossession of the property. At most, there is purely a private civil dispute between the parties for resolution of which they can move Civil Court and even get interim appropriate order during the pendency of the suit. But Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Darbhanga has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. in the given facts and circumstances of the case and hence, it is liable to be quashed. Ld. counsel for the petitioner also refers to and relies upon Yugal Kishore Choudhary v. State of Bihar as decided by this Court and as reported in 2023 (6) BLJ 360.