KRISHNADHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for quashing of the order impugned dated 3.1.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 135/03 by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the order passed by the SDM, Deoghar in Cr. Misc. Case No. 319/03 on 16.9.03 was held illegal and not sustainable under law.

(2.) FROM perusal of the order impugned dated 3.1.2004 it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner/1st Party Krishnadhan Mishra and the Opposite Party No. 2 Tulsidhan Mishra were the full brothers who jointly succeeded the property of their mother after her death and in the petition filed in the Court below the 1st party Krishnadhan Mishra had clearly stated that both the parties were in joint possession over the land in dispute. The 2nd party/Opposite Party No. 2 and others of the present petition had not shown their causes but they had claimed exclusive possession over the suit property. It was observed that since both the parties were in joint possession over the suit property and even if this fact is denied by the members of the Opposite Party (2nd party) of the instant case, the same was fully covered by a decision as propounded by this Court in Parasuram Sana's case (supra) wherein under the same circumstances it was held that there was no basis for the Court below for initiating the proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC. With such observation and the reasons the Revision was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar setting aside the order of the SDM dated 16.9.2003.

(3.) FROM perusal of the order passed by the SDM dated 16.9.2003 in Cr Misc case No. 319/03 it is evident that the learned SDM by the order impugned converted the proceeding under Section 144 into one under Section 145 between the parties of the present Cr. Misc. Petition, except the State on the ground that there was a land dispute between the parties since the situation was tensed hence its disposal was not possible by way of proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC and it was imperative to examine the documents on behalf of the parties and record the evidence of the witnesses.