KULDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that pursuant to the purported order of attachment passed under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a pending criminal case against one Bir Inder Singh Randhawa filed by respondent No, 8, Amar-jeet Singh Randhawa, the petitioner's property has been attached. Petitioner's contention is that the aforesaid criminal case was filed by Amarjeet Singh, respondent No. 8 and in that criminal case proclamation in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short) was issued by the learned Magistrate and that after the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of the Code, on an application filed by the police in terms of Section 83 of the Code, an order of attachment of property was passed. The petitioner's contention is that the property sought to be attached in compliance with the aforesaid attachment order actually belongs to the petitioner and that it does not belong to the accused Bir Inder Singh. For the reasons that I assign hereafter, I need not go into the question whether the property attached belongs to the petitioner or not, or whether it at all belongs to the accused Bir Inder Singh.

(2.) The complaint case was filed by respondent No. 8 against Bir Inder Singh with respect to some dispute relating to the realisation of rental income originating from some immovable property. Respondent No. 8 and Bir Inder Singh are brothers. The petitioner is the mother of these two brothers. The petitioner's husband and the father of these two brothers died some time back and before his death he had executed a Will which is the subject matter of probate proceedings pending in a competent civil Court. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 8 appears to have filed the aforesaid complaint case against Bir Inder Singh. Bir Inder Singh filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code in this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal complaint. The main reason and ground in the aforesaid 482 petition was that the subject matter of the complaint was of a civil nature as the dispute, if at all, related to the realisation of rental income from an immovable property. The aforesaid 482 petition has been admitted and this Court has passed an order staying further proceedings in the aforesaid trial. As noticed at the outset, purportedly because accused Bir Inder Singh in the aforesaid complaint was allegedly evading arrest, an order under Section 82 of the Code was passed by the learned Court below. That was on 13th February, 2002. On 16th March, 2002, the learned Court below on the application of the police passed an order purportedly under Section 83 of the Code. Both the orders are quoted verbatim herein below for ready reference :

(3.) Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Code, which relates to the Jurisdiction and power of a Court ordering the attachment of a property, reads thus :