CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the Sub-District Magistrate, Rajgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.D.M.' for short) wherein the learned S.D.M, had appointed a Receiver over a disputed property between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted a complaint at Police Station, Rajgarh and also submitted a complaint before the learned S.D.M., Rajgarh wherein he claimed that there was a dispute between him and Hari Ram, respondent No. 2, about a plot situated in Mohalla Khadolian about which a civil suit is pending between the parties before the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, the parties have clashed over the plot. In fact, because of the animosity between the families, the petitioner's son was killed by those who are family members of the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the illegal occupation of the said plot by the respondent No. 2 and his family members was allegedly made. Therefore, he prayed that action should be taken under section 145 of the Code Criminal Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code' for short). Upon the receipt of this complaint, the matter was referred to the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh, who was directed to investigate into the case. The S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh conducted the preliminary inquiry under section 145 of the Code and submitted his report to the S.D.M. The learned S.D.M. vide order dated 20.8.2004 was pleased to issue notice to the respondent No. 2 as well as to appoint the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajgarh as a Receiver over the disputed property. Since the respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2004, he filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh. Vide order dated 24.3.2005 the learned Judge was pleased to quash the order dated 20.8.2004 whereby cancelling the appointment of the Receiver. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that because of the dispute between two families the petitioner has already lost his son. The bad blood continues between the two families. The respondent No. 2 is still trying to illegally occupy the plot. Thus, the apprehension of breach of peace is a bona fide one. He has further argued that the S.D.M. was pleased to pass an order appointing the S.H.O. only after being satisfied about the possibility of the breach of peace. Lastly, he has contended that mere pendency of.a civil suit with regard to the same property in question does not oust of the jurisdiction of the S.D.M. under sections 145 and 146 of the Code.