MOHD. RASHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking to place on record a copy of the Compromise Deed. For the reasons detailed in the application, it is allowed. Copy of the Compromise Deed is taken on record. Application disposed of.

(2.) CRMC No. 830/2018. In this petition, the petitioner Mohd. Rashid has challenged the order of Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote dated 09.10.2017 whereby the Magistrate while initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.PC has attached the immoveable property bearing under Khasra Nos.1586, 1587, 1580 and 1603 situated at Mankote, Mendhar, Distt. Poonch. The petitioner Mohd Rashid has also called-in-question the order of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 15.11.2018 passed in a Revision preferred by the petitioner Mohd Rashid against the aforesaid order of the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Teshildar), Mankote whereby the Revision Petition of the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that the order of attachment is not revisable in terms of Section 435(a) (4) of the Cr.PC. The genesis of the dispute between the parties, i.e., petitioner Mohd Rashid and respondent No.3-Mohd Akber lies in the rival claim of the parties to the possession of the land measuring 03 Kanals 08 Marlas in Khasra No.1586, 9 Kanal 6 Marlas in Khasra No.1587, 3 Kanals in Khasra No. 1580 and 5 Kanals 19 Marlas in Khasra No.1603 situate at Mankote, Tehsil Mendhar, Distt. Poonch. The petitioner Mohd Rashid claims that he is in possession of the subject land falling in Khasra Nos.1586 and 1587 whereas the respondent No.3 Mohd Akber claims that he is in possession of the land falling in Khasra Nos.1580 and 1603. It is claimed by the petitioner that he and respondent No.3 are co-sharers of the aforesaid property, but, are in possession of their respective shares, as is evident from the revenue record. It is alleged that respondent No.3 Mohd Akber made an attempt to encroach upon the land in possession of the petitioner, which constrained the petitioner to file the Civil Suit in the court of learned Munsiff, Mendhar and as a counter blast the respondent No.3 too filed a Civil Suit for partition on the similar grounds before the learned Munsiff Mendhar. It is stated that in both the suits, the Civil Court passed the order of status quo. It is submitted that while both the parties were litigating in the Civil Court, on the report of the SDPO, Mendhar and SDM Mendhar, the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar), Mankote apprehending that there was likelihood of breach of peace concerning the subject land, initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC and vide its order dated 09.10.2017 attached the subject properties and kept the same on Superdnama. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order by way of Revision before the learned District Judge, Poonch, who vide its order dated 15.11.2018 dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that the order of attachment was interlocutory order, therefore, was not revisable. It is this order of attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate Ist Class (Tehsildar) Mankote dated 09.10.2017 and order in Revision passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch dated 15.11.2018, which are subject matter of challenge in this petition. This Court while issuing notice in the petition on 31.12.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the land-in-question.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner-Mohd Rashid filed a complaint before the SHO. Police Station, Mendhar against respondent-Mohd Akber and his five sons for setting ablaze the grass allegedly stacked at his land. On the basis of the complaint of Mohd Rashid. FIR No.219 of 2018 for the offence under Section 435 RPC was registered in the Police Station, Mendhar against the respondent No.3- Mohd Akber and his five sons. Aggrieved the respondent No.3- Mohd Akber invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested in terms of Section 561-A Cr.PC and filed CRMC No. 50/2019. The respondent No.3 along with his five sons also filed an application for anticipatory bail, which is registered as Bail App No.09/2019. In the CRMC No.50/2019, this Court vide its order dated 06.02.2019 directed the respondent-Police to file the status report whereas in the application moved by the respondent No.3 and his sons for anticipatory bail, this Court vide its order dated 06.02.2019, granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.219 of 2018 subject to the accused furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. Certain other terms and conditions were also imposed.