SUKHLAL BIRULY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 23/9/2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2017, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has been pleased to dismiss the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in connection with which the revision application was preferred and also for quashing the order dtd. 9/5/2017 passed in Misc. Case No.57 of 2016 instituted in terms of sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C whereby learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa has been pleaded to direct the Circle Officer to effect delivery of possession of the property in question in favour of the O.P.nos.2 and 3.

(3.) Mr. Krishany Ray, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a proceeding under sec. 107 Cr.P.C was instituted on 22/9/2016 against the O.P.no.3 by O.P.no.2. He submits that that the petitioner is owner of the land in question as he has purchased the land in question from O.P.no.3 vide sale deed dtd. 31/8/2015 contained at Annexure-1 to the petition. He submits that order has been passed under sec. 107 Cr.P.C by which possession has been put into to the O.P.No.2. he submits that, that power is not there to the learned Magistrate to put into possession. By way of referring sec. 107 Cr.P.C, he submits that the learned court is only required to look into that if any breach of peace or any disturbance is there, he can order to execute a bond for one year only and by the impugned order the possession has been given to the O.P.no.2. He submits that it is not in the light of sec. 107 Cr.P.C. He further submits that sec. 107 Cr.P.C was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate", (1970) 3 SCC 746 and he relied on paragraph nos.32, 33 and 35 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereinbelow: