GOPI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The land bearing Khasra No. 918 admeasuring 57 beghas and 2 bisvas situated at village Bhainswa is admittedly of the joint tenancy of three brother namely Srinarain, non- petitioner No.2, Kajod, non-petitioner No. 3 and one Suraj. Kajod appears to have transferred his rights in the joint property to Gopiram. petitioner, by registered sale deed dated 10.7.91. Some dispute over the possession of the transferred land appears to have arisen between the parties whereupon litigations before the Revenue and Civil Courts commenced. Gopi Ram, petitioner, filed a suit for injunction in the Revenue Court but his prayer for issue of an interim injunction in such suit was not accepted and the application was dismissed in 15.7.91. Srinarain, non- petitioner No.2. appears to have challenged the very execution of the sale deed by Kajod in favour of the Gopi Ram before a civil court and prayed for an interim injunction therein. Such application appears to have been dismissed by the trial court whereupon S.B.Cr.Misc. Appeal No. 277/92 was filed before this court and on 20.5.92 this court passed the following order:

(3.) It was in this backdrop that the learned Executive Magistrate initiated proceed Under section 145(1) Crimial P.C. in respect to the subject matter of the present litigation on the basis of an information dated 1.7.92, received from S.H.O. P/s. Jobner. By a subsequent order passed Under section 146(1) Cr.PC. on 2.7.92 the learned Magistrate attached the property in question on the ground of emergency. Such order of the learned Magistrate was challenged by Srinarain before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambher Lake, but vide her impugned order dated 2.9.96 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that since the property in question was the joint property of three brothers and as stated on behalf of the State there was no likelihood of any breach of peace in the matter, there was no justification in permitting the continuance of these proceedings. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate giving rise to this petition Under section 397/401 Cr.RC.