HAKIM DIN Vs. CHATROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition calls in question two orders passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reasi. One passed on 24.5.1991 and the other on 23.9.1991.

(2.) An application in terms of Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Magistrate was moved by one Chatroo Sb. Chardtoo. On this application having been put up before the Magistrate, he passes an order on 24.5.1991 on finding that a dispute in respect of property situate within the local limits of his jurisdiction existed, the trial Magistrate, records his satisfaction with respect to exigencies of a likelihood of breach of peace on such dispute. He by virtue of this order directs the other side (petitioner herein) to attend his Court on 29.5.1991 and to put up his written statements of his respective claims. After almost four months having passed this order, a fresh application was moved by the respondent Chatroo stating that the dispute had assumed large dimensions and would cause danger to the peace and tranquility on spot. On being satisfied that the matter was one of emergency, the Subordinate Magistrate exercised his powers in terms of Proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 145 and attached the land. The petitioner aggrieved of both these orders has come to this Court for setting aside of these orders on the following grounds:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent Chatroo has prefaced his arguments with a preliminary objection that it is only in respect of order dated 24.5.199 1 that the revision can lie. As far order dated 23.9.199 1 is concerned, no revision against the same can lie, because, of an express bar created by Section 435-(4 A). He has in this behalf referred to an authority reported in 1979 K.L.J. P: 377. He has refuted the grounds raised by the petitioner by contending that the grounds are not tenable a the preliminary order conforms to the requirements of Section 145. He has tried to draw a distinction between the facts of the cases referred to by Mr. Salaria and those of the case in hand in respect of non-maintainability of the proceedings. The matter here was concluded by the Civil Court while as in the case referred the matter was sub-judice before the Civil Court and the pendency of proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was dis-approved, because, this would open a parallel bout of litigation, besides this the main argument advanced by Mr. Thakur, is that the CIvil lis has been decided by the Civil Court wherein the petitioner was not a party, therefore, a finding on such civil proceedings or in other proceedings in terms of Agrarian Reforms Act would not debar the respondents herein, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Magistrate in terms of Section 145 of Cr. P.C.