PRATAP Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, dated November 18, 1983, whereby he dismissed the revision petition preferred against an order of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC on application under Section 146 Cr. PC.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that Ratan Lal non -petitioner moved an application under Section 145 Cr. PC on July 19, 1982 before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur wherein it was alleged by him that the land mentioned in para 1 of his application popularly known as Beela Hali Kothi is situated in village Kajmana, police station Choth -Ka -Barbada. It is alleged that this land has been in possession of his father since last 50 years and he had been cultivating the same. It was alleged that his father had spent a huge amount for making it cultivable and as prior to it, it was barren land. He alleged that by a mistake in S.Y. 2009 it was wrongly entered in revenue records in the name of Ram Sukha and Pratap. As his father had been cultivating it without any objection, he never knew about it. His father expired in Samvat 2015. Thereafter he had been cultivating the land and stated that the names of the non -petitioners have been wrongly entered into the revenue record. They having nothing to do with this land. It was alleged that in 1976 the Tehsildar, Sawaimadhopur, while doing the mutation wrongly entered the names of Pratap and Ram Sukha against which the petitioner has filed an appeal and the appellate court accepted the same. It was alleged that since after that the petitioner had been depositing the land revenue in his capacity as a khatedar kastkar. Thus the non -petitioners have no right to the land. It was further alleged by the applicant that non -applicant Nos. 2 3 along with one Sukh Deva through whom the applicant had got cultivation done and their names have been entered as such in the revenue record, conspired to throw out the applicant from the land and in order to dispossess him by force stated saying that he will not be permitted to cultivate the land. When the applicant as usual went for cultivation along with Sukh Deva the non -applicants forming an unlawful assembly came there and made an obstruction as a result of which a case was registered against them for offence under Sections 341 and 447 IPC. It was alleged that in khasra No. 193/670 out of 1 bigha and 11 biswas is Rajka and sugarcane were standing in 10 biswas. Thereafter it is alleged that these people are still trying to dispossess him and hence he prayed his possession on the land should be declared and the non -applicants should be restrained for not interfering with the possession. A prayer for appointment of receiver was also made. The applicant along with his complaint filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of Sukh Deva and Sharvan. On receipt of this application alongwith the application for appointment of receiver the Sub -Divisional Magistrate drew a preliminary order on the same day, i.e., July 19, 1982. After receipt of the reply from the parties, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate vide his order April 2, 1983 and after hearing the arguments of both the sides ordered the attachment of the standing crop and appointed the Tehsildar, Sawaimadhopur as the receiver of the property in Araji khasra numbers in dispute. A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order which was finally stayed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur vide his order, dated April 6, 1983. Arguments were heard in the detail by the learned Sessions Judge who vide his order, dated November 18, 1983 dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that there is complete bar for filing a second revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provision of Section 482 Cr.PC cannot be invoked so as to circumvent the law. It is submitted that under subsection (2) of Section 397 Cr.PC there is total prohibition against a revision petition of an interlocutory order and in Sub -section (3) of Section 397 Cr.PC there is further prohibition for filing a revision petition by the same party who has filed it before the High Court or the Court of Sessions. It is submitted that it was choice of the petitioner to have invoked the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or could have come straight to this court under Section 397 Cr.PC for challenging the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, but not having approached the Sessions Judge where he failed to pursuade the Sessions Judge to reverse the order he could not have maintained a revision and if he could not have done so, then his filing an application under Section 482 Cr.PC is only calculated to frustrate the bar contained in Section 397(3) Cr.PC. In supported of his contention the learned counsel has relied on Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr. : 1979CriLJ318 , Chandra Kala Devi v. The State of Bihar and Anr. 1980 Cr.LJ 328, Dassu v. Smt. Manitra 1976 Cr.LJ 1221, Shariffuddin Haji Noor Baksh v. State 1977 Cr.LJ 1054 Shankara Rupa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1978 Cr.LJ (NOC) 66, M. Chandran v. B. Jagadamma and Anr. 1982 Cr.LJ 100, Soni and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1983 (II) Crimes 508 and Swetamber Jain Sampraday v. Digamber Apnay and Ors. 1981 WLN 471. Learned counsel also submits that the two courts after carefully examining the report have come to the conclusion that there is a serious dispute about the possession and have also come to the finding that there is imminent danger of the breach of peace, therefore, thought it proper to order the appointment of a receiver and, therefore, no interference should be made. It is further submitted that an appraisal of the documents cannot be made while considering an application under Section 482 Cr.PC because their is neither abuse of the process of the court nor an interference is called so to ensure the meeting of the ends of justice.