KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have called in question impugned order dated 19.09.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short, 'learned revisional Court') affirming order dated 06.09.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi (for short, 'learned Executive Magistrate').

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that there was some dispute regarding possession of agricultural land measuring 6.25 hectares of Khasra Nos. 514 to 532 of village Pipalki and that prompted the SHO of the concerned Police Station to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. As per report submitted by the Police, there was some bickerings between two communities of the village i.e. Rawal community and Sen community and the bone of the contention was the aforesaid agricultural land. The claim of the Rawal community was that in the revenue records, the disputed agricultural land is recorded in their names but the rival claim of the Sen community was that same is donated to the community in lieu of services rendered by that community to Rawal community during marriage, festivals and death occasions etc besides providing other services. There was serious dispute about possession over the land in question wherein a well was also situated for irrigating the land. Taking stock of situation, the S.H.O. apprehended that the dispute may result in breach of peace and therefore made an endavour to report the same to the learned Executive Magistrate through Public Prosecutor. Learned Executive Magistrate, while resorting to Section 146(1) & (2) Cr.P.C. attached the disputed agricultural land and appointed Tehsildar, Sirohi as receiver.

(3.) Feeling disgruntled with the order passed by learned Executive Magistrate, both the parties approached the learned revisional Court by preferring two separate revision petitions. Learned revisional Court, by the order impugned, declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, precisely, by observing that since the dispute is between two communities and therefore, the order impugned is just for maintaining peace and harmony between the communities. With these observations, the learned revisional Court recorded its satisfaction about correctness and legality of the impugned order. Finally, in exercise of its discretion, rejected both the revision petitions. While rejecting the revision petitions, learned revisional Court also observed that looking to the nature of dispute wherein two communities are pitted against each other, it is expected of the learned Executive Magistrate to proceed with the inquiry in the matter with utmost expediency and decide the main petition under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as expeditiously as early as possible. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.D.L.R.Vyas and Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.