RAGHUBANS SINGH Vs. MAHABIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this present revision has sought for quashing a proceeding which has been initiated under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the orders of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, dated the 12th of March, 1969 in Case no. 22(M) of 1969. There was a dispute between the parties in respect of a certain plot of land situated in the heart of the town of Patna. Previously there was a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This proceeding was later on dropped on 14.11.1968 and thereafter there was again another proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate by his impugned order dated the 12th of March, 1969. At the time of the hearing of the application three points were pressed by Mr. Ghosal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. One of these is to the effect that the entire proceeding was vitiated on account of the contravention of the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, which has been urged is that there was a civil suit pending between the parties in respect of the same land which is numbered as Title Suit No. 183 of 2965 and, therefore, in such circumstance, no proceeding under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code should have been drawn up. Thirdly it has been contended that there was previously another Title Suit numbered as 132 of 1962 in respect of the same land, but of course not between the same parties and the decision in that suit has already been in favour of the petitioner on 4.5.1968 and, therefore, the present proceeding should not have been drawn up. I will now take up each of these points which have been pressed in this revision.

(2.) So far as the first point is concerned, the impugned order is attacked on the ground that the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate instead of directing the parties to file written statements in his court has directed them to do so in the court of Sri S.N. Sahay. The impugned order of the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate runs as follows: - -

(3.) In the case of (1) Misri Chaudhury and others versus Narsingh Prasad Tewari, reported in, 2 P.L.T. (1921) 186 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a proceeding under Sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code was drawn up and in the order there was a direction to the effect as follows: - -