GOPAL SINGH Vs. MANGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Sikar in a case under sec. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: - A report was made by Mangla and others (hereinafter to be referred to as the second party) at the Police Station, Thoi, on the 23rd of June, 1954. It was alleged therein that the second party had been in actual possession of the land under the well called Liladei in the village of Jharli, District Sikar, and that the first party interfered with that possession and there was danger of breach of the peace on account of this interference by the first party. On this the police of Thoi, submitted a report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nim-ka-Thana that one third of the land under the well named Liladei was being cultivated by Prahlad son of Umrao Singh and the remaining two third was being cultivated by Gopal Singh, Jasu Singh and Mangla,and Gopal Singh and Jasu Singh wanted to dispossess Mangla from which breach of the peace was apprehended- It was prayed that an action under sec. 107 Cr. P. C. be taken against Gopal Singh's party i. e. , the first party. This report by the police is dated the 27th June, 1954. On the 28th June, 1954, the the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. and called upon the first party to furnish security for keeping the peace and a notice was issued to the first party to show cause. THE first party showing cause filed their reply dated the of 10th July, 1954. THEy said in this reply that the second party had absolutely nothing to do with the land under the well Liladei and that the said and was being cultivated by Gopal Singh Prahald Singh and Jai Singh. THE second party also claimed exclusive possession of the land under the well Liladei. THE Magistrate was of opinion that the proceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. were called for under the circumstances of that case and drew up a preliminary order on the 18th of August, 1954, saying that both the parties claimed their exclusive possession over the land under the said well and he was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. THE proceedings under sec. 107 were, therefore, converted into those under sec. 145 and notices were issued to both the parties in accordance with the provisions of sec. 145 and both the parties were called upon to file their written statements if any, and the evidence regarding the actual possession of the land under the said well 28th of August, 1954, was fixed for the filing of written statements and evidence, if any.