RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned Additional Session Judge (1). Hanumangarh dated March 1, 1983 passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the officer -in -charge, Police Station, Tibi submitted a report in writing Before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh on December 8, 1982 Stating therein that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed between Chiranjilal and Rameshkumar on the one hand (here in after referred to as Party No. 1) and Ramprasad, Shiv Bhagwan and Ganesharam on the other hand (for brevity as Party No. 2) in respect of situate in Railway Station locality of village fibi. It was further stated that the dispute had taken a grave shape so much so that and serious incident might take place. It was therefore prayed that a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. be initiated. The learned Magistrate felt satisfied from the aforesaid report of the Police that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed. He there upon drew up an order on the same day under Sub -section (I) of Sections 145 Cr. P.C. and issued notices to the parties. Simultaneously he passed an order for the attachment of the shop in dispute and appointed the Tehsildar as a receiver. In pursuance to it, the Tehsildar took possession of the shop on 9.12.82. Party No. J went in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Hanumangarh against the order of the learned Magistrate and contended that it was bad in law and did not fulfill the requirements of Sub -section (1) of Section 145, Cr. P.C. The learned Additional Session Judge accepted the contention of party No. I and set aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated December 8, 1982. He held that the order drawn by the Magistrate, was not in conformity with the provisions of Sub -section (1). Aggrieved against the said order party No. 2 has come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) IT was stenuously contended by the earned Counsel for party No. 2 that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a grave error in holding that the order of the learned Magistrate did not fulfill the requirements of Sub -section (1)of Section 145, Cr. P.C. It was argued that the order of the learned Magistrate was in conformity of the provisions of Sub -section (1) and did not suffer from any infirmlty. Reliance was placed on Ram Avtar v. Dhanroj 1977 F.L.W 47, In reply, the earned Counsel for party No. J supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Inter alia it was submitted that in case, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was held not valid, the case should be sent back to him to decide the remaining contentions, which they raised before him and were left undecided by him. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.