LAWS(RAJ)-2012-8-331

MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

Decided On August 07, 2012
MOOL CHAND Appellant
V/S
State Of Rajasthan And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.5.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Docoit Affected Area, Bharatpur whereby the revisional court has quashed the order of the Addl. District Magistrate passed under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. for appointing the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mathuragate, Bharatpur as Receiver to the disputed property.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mathuragate, Bharatpur under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. for the property situated at Kila Bharatpur Pator No. 6 with the allegation that there is eminent danger of breach of peace between the parties in respect of the immovable property on the matter of possession. The preliminary report was considered by the court concerned and the order of attachment and appointment of Receiver has been passed. The order has been challenged before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur who has transferred the case to the Special Judge, Dacoit Affected Area Bharatpur who reversed the order and directed the Receiver to hand over the possession to the party from whose possession the property has been taken. Aggrieved against this order, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that scope of revisional court is limited one. There is a specific finding of the Executive Magistrate that there is an eminent danger of breach of peace and hence the order passed by the court below is in consonance with the provisions of law. There are catena of judgments in which it has been held that where there is eminent danger of breachof peace, the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. could be involved in spite of the fact that the matter has been seized with civil court and in view of the above law, the order of the Executive Magistrate was sound and interference in revisional court was unwarranted and hence the order of the Executive Magistrae should be restored.