SUDESH KUMAR Vs. ROOP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this application, under section 561 -A Cr.P.C, modification/clarification of order passed by this court on 2.9.2003 in Cr. Revision No. 63/2003 is sought along with an application for condonation of delay.

(2.) PETITIONER appears to have filed an application before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reasi, for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C alleging therein that he was in possession of land measuring 82 kanals and 7 marlas contained in survey No. 51, located in village Suketar near Sule Nursery, Reasi, as its owner. He further stated to have been cultivating the said land through his employee Mohd Din. The respondent, however, managed the Girdawari entries in his favour, by taking the benefit of being owner in possession of an adjoining piece of land and started fencing it with the purpose to grab the same. The petitioner further stated to have when objected the respondent not to take forcible possession of his land, but the respondent threatened him of dire consequences and thus given rise to dispute concerning the land and occasioned breach of peace on spot. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reasi, after proceeding in the matter and recording the statements, asked the Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar, Reasi, to hold a local enquiry. After spot inspection and on receipt of report from Tehsildar, the subject matter of the dispute was attached by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reasi. In the objections filed by the respondent, it was pleaded that land in dispute, measuring 6 Kanal 16 Marlas was in his cultivating possession as tenant from 1974 till date. He also denied Mohd Din to be an employee of the petitioner. The Magistrate, after analyzing the evidence produced by the parties and considering their rival contentions, found that proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C are not tenable as the petitioner could not establish his claim over the land and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the application under section 145 Cr.P.C, revision petition came to be preferred before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Reasi. The revisional Court, after going through the material on record collected by the Magistrate and hearing the parties, found the order under revision requiring no interference and consequently dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 30.4.2002.

(3.) AGAINST this order passed by the revisional Court, another revision petition came to be preferred by the petitioner in this Court. This court, however, vide order dated 02.09.2003 observed that once the Sessions Judge is moved, the jurisdiction of the High Court will stand ousted by Section 435 Cr.P.C and held as under: - -