HRISHIKESH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26-4-2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision by setting aside the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Dalton-ganj, in Misc. Case No. 299 of 1999.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application that on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) was initiated and after considering the show cause field on behalf of the parties and also the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, directed the opposite party No. 2 to remove the obstruction from the land in question and the said order was also affirmed in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2000 by order dated 16-12-2000. It is further claimed that on an incorrect and false report submitted by the police, the proceeding under Section 147 of the Code was dropped by order dated 3-4-2001. Lateron the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate made spot verification as provided under Section 148 of the Code and by order dated 16-10-2001 directed the opposite party No. 2 to remove the obstructions. Against which the opposite party preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Palamau, which was allowed by the order impugned, hence this application.

(3.) The opposite party No. 2 also filed reply claiming therein that the order dated 30-5-2000 was duly complied with by the opposite party No. 2 and thereafter the matter was finally disposed of by order dated 3-4-2001 whereby the proceeding was closed. It is further stated that in compliance of the order dated 30-5-2000, the opposite party No. 2 had completely removed the wall which was the subject matter in dispute. It is further stated that the order dated 15-10-2001 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Daltonganj, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal as the proceeding was finally dropped on 3-4-2001, therefore, there was no proceeding under Section 147 of the Code pending at the time. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the revision, as the subject matter, which has been taken into account by order dated 15-10-2001 is quite different, which is in respect of drainage, which was not the subject matter in dispute in the proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the code rather there was a dispute as regards to the construction of wall which has already been removed by opposite party No. 2 and, as such, this application is fit to be dismissed.