BACHO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first two applications in revision, namely, Criminal Revision Nos. 1961 and 2388, are directed against the order dated the 31st August, 1968, parsed by the Sub-divisional "Magistrate, Monghyr Sadar, in a proceeding under Section 107 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000.00 each with two sureties of the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners of the two cases have come up to this Court in revision. The facts, which are not in dispute in all the cases, are that originally a dispute arose for possession over the lands measuring about 32 acres and odd (about 52 bighas of land), comprised of various khesra and khatas situated in village Bhabangama under Touzi Nos. 6862, 417C and 4180, between the parties. The disputed lands were attached under 3. 146 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, by order dated the let October, 1965, passed in Case No. 421M of 1954. There-upon, Gulam Hussain, the landlord, filed Title Suit No. 59 of 1958 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, First Court, Monghyr for declaration of his title and possession over the disputed laud. The suit was decreed on the 30th November, 1900. The petitioner of Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968, who were the defendants first party in the said title suit, filed an appeal in this Court, which was numbered as First Appeal No. 371 of 1960. Pending disposal of the first appeal in this Court, Gulam Husaain and others, the decree-holders, levied execution for delivery of possession of the disputed land. The petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968 filed a petition to stay the delivery of possession. After hearing both the parties, the learned Registrar ordered that the decree-holders respondents could get delivery of possession if they deposited the amount for which the lands are settled in the previous years. The decree-holders deposited the amount and got delivery of possession.

(2.) The first appeal filed by, the petitioners (of Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968) was allowed by this Court on the 18th September, 1967. On the 29th September, 1967, the petitioners filed an application for restitution under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Subordinate Judge, First Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, namely, Qulain Hussain and others, filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, numbered as S. C. A. No. 165 of 1967, and, in the said case they filed an application for stay of the restitution proceeding started by the petitioners under the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an order dated the 22nd January, 1968, the stay petition of Gulam Hussain and others was disposed of by this Court. The prayer of stay was refused on condition that the defendants-respondents, namely, the petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968, furnished security for Rs. 1,325 per annum until the disposal of the said appeal before taking possession of the land in dispute. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the petitioners deposited Rs. 1,325 the rabbi crops of 1967-68 to the credit of the plaintiffs within the time granted. So far the facts are not disputed, Now, I shall take up each case separately. Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968

(3.) It appears that after Gulam Hussain and others (Plaintiffs) failed in their attempt to get delivery of possession stayed, Huro Yadav and others (petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 2388 of 1968 and opposite party of this Criminal Revision No. 1961 of 1968) attempted to delay the delivery of possession. The petitioners, however, got delivery of possession of the disputed land with standing rabi crops on the 11th February, 1968; but this fact is being disputed by the opposite party. Their case is that the delivery of possession effected in favour of the petitioners was collusive. Whatever the position may be, it is not disputed that, according of the records, delivery of possession had been effected in pursuance of the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. In spite of the success of the petitioners in this Court and delivery of possession in their favour, the trouble did not cease. The petitioners filed several sanahas alleging wrongful acts committed by the opposite party with the support of Gulam Hussain and others. In this situation) the Sub-Inspector of Police of Lakhisharai police station submitted report on the 20th July, 1968, for action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners and the members of the opposite party. The police report is Annexure 2 to the petition. The Sub-Inspector of Police has said in his report that on the basis of the sanahas lodged by the petitioners, he made enquiry and learnt that there was a chronic dispute between the parties since 1955-56. There were series of cases between the first party (petitioners) and the landlord Gulam Hussain; but during the pendency of the proceeding the disputed lands were given to the second party (opposite party). The following portion of the report is very significant: The 1st party has stated that the disputed lands have been given in possession by virtue of the decree of 1st Sub-Judge, Monghyr, dated 19,1.1968 but on the Dakhaldehani the objectors members of the 2nd party filed in the case and the members of the 2nd party got the stay order but the Dakhaldehani was already done, so the first party got the deli-very of possession. The 2nd party claimed that the Dakhaldehani was not done as the case was decided in favour of malik Sri Gulam Hussain who has no concern with the land in question at present. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector observed: