Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
C.N. TIWARY, J.
Ram Pratap Narain Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & others – Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1350 of 1978
Decided on: 10.5.1976
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 144 - POSSESSION - AGENT - PRINCIPAL - JURISDICTION - ORDER - POLICE - COMPLIANCE - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 145 - SECTION 188 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 195 - SECTION 24 - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT - ARTICLES 226 AND 227 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY ORDER - TEMPORARY ORDER - PERMANENT ORDER - EVICTION - POSSESSION - OWNERSHIP - TITLE - JURISDICTION - CRIMINAL COURT - CIVIL COURT - INJUNCTION - SUBSTANCE OF DIRECTION - DISHONESTLY TAKING CROPS - FINAL DECISION - FUTURE RIGHTS - DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agent of a company operating book stalls at a railway station, challenged an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) restraining him from going upon the disputed book stalls. The Magistrate had also directed the Officer-in-charge of the Government Railway Police (GRP) to comply with the order both in letter and spirit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the preliminary order under Section 144 of the CrPC restraining both parties from going on the book stalls and that after hearing the parties, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order making the preliminary order absolute against the petitioner and vacating it against the company. The court further held that the direction issued to the Officer-in-charge GRP was only to the effect that the police should see that the temporary order passed under Section 144 of the CrPC restraining the petitioner from going over the stalls should be complied with both in letter as well as in spirit. This observation of the learned Magistrate does not amount to an order directing the place to evict one party and put the other party in possession of the disputed stalls.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the preliminary order under Section 144 of the CrPC restraining both parties from going on the book stalls? 2. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order making the preliminary order absolute against the petitioner and vacating it against the company? 3. Whether the direction issued to the Officer-in-charge GRP was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the preliminary order under Section 144 of the CrPC restraining both parties from going on the book stalls as there was serious apprehension of breach of the peace. 2. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order making the preliminary order absolute against the petitioner and vacating it against the company as the direction of the learned Magistrate to the Officer-in-charge GRP to see that the temporary order passed under Section 144 of the CrPC was complied with was perfectly justified and it was in this way that breach of the peace at the railway platform could have been prevented. 3. The direction issued to the Officer-in-charge GRP was valid as it was only to the effect that the police should see that the temporary order passed under Section 144 of the CrPC restraining the petitioner from going over the stalls should be complied with both in letter as well as in spirit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the Magistrate's order.
C.N. TIWARY, J.
1. This is an application for quashing the ORDER :dated 22.3.1976 (Annexure 3) passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Begusarai, in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Opposite Party No. 1 is the State of Bihar and opposite party no. 2 is the Officer-in-charge, G.R.P. Barauni Junction Railway. Opposite party no. 3 is Prabhat Kumar Mukherjee, Field Officer and Opposite party no. 4, is S.M. Ahmad, Manager of M/s. A.H. Wheeler and Company Pvt. Ltd., 15 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company is engaged in carrying on the business of Railway book stalls at different Railway stations throughout India. The Company has three book stalls located on different platforms at Barauni junction Railway station.
3. The case of the petitioner is that in the month of June, 1968, the Company appointed the petitioner as its Commission Agent with respect to the aforesaid three book stalls at Barauni Junction Railway station and since then the petitioner has been in exclusive physical possession of the disputed book stalls and trollies at Barauni Junction Railway station. It is said that the officers and staff of the Company in ORDER :to have illegal gain wanted to appoint new agent and therefore started threatening and harassing the petitioner so that the petitioner might give up possession of the stalls. On 29.2.1976, at 11.30 hours, opposite party no. 3 lodged an information with the Barauni G.R.P. to the effect that the agency of the petitioner was terminated on 9.1.1976, but he refused to hand over charge to the Company and as such, there was an apprehension of breach of the peace. On the same day, at 12.30 hours, the petitioner also lodged an information with the Barauni G.R.P. that Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 long with 9 and 10 other persons had called his son Awadhesh Kumar Sinha in the retiring room and held out a threat to him that the possession of the book stalls would be taken by them forcibly. The police was requested to take appropriate action. The information lodged by opposite party no. 3 was entered as Station Diary Entry no. 755 and the information lodged by the petitioner was entered as Station Diary Entry no. 578 dated 29.2.1976. On 3.3.1976, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Barauni G.R.P. submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Begusarai for action under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against both the parties. On receipt of the police report, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, by his ORDER :dated 4.3.1976 drew up a proceeding under section 144 of the Code against both the parties restraining them from going upon the disputed book stalls and requiring them to show cause as to why rule should not be made absolute against them. Opposite party no. 3 Prabhat Kumar Mukherjee and Opposite party no. 4, S.M. Ahmad were made first party and petitioner Ram Pratap Narain Singh was made second party in the proceeding.
4. Parties filed their show cause before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. In the show cause filed on behalf of the first party, it was stated that the agency of the petitioner had been terminated by the Company on 9.1.1976 and a new agent Shri B.K. Tiwary had been appointed. Further contention of the first party was that the possession of the second party-petitioner was that of a permissive character and that in the event of this being revoked the possession would be deemed automatically to be transferred in favour of the company.
5. The second party-petitioner stated in his show cause that he was in actual physical possession of the subject-matter of dispute and that a Civil Suit no. 19 of 1976 filed by the Company in the court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, against the petitioner for recovery of possession of the subject-matter of dispute was pending and therefore, the provision of section 144 of the Code could not be invoked.
6. The learned Sub-divisional Magistr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
