Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJIV ROY, J.
Sumeet Singh Kalsi @ Naujeet Singh Kalsi @ Sunnit Kalsi, S/o. Late Jasbir Singh Kalsi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2798 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Warrant - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 82, 83 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and their application in the issuance of processes against the accused persons. The court considered the legal requirements for the issuance of processes under these sections and their implications on the accused persons' obligations to comply with the court's orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order passed in a complaint case, challenging the issuance of processes under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner had been accused of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to property disputes and criminal acts committed against the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not challenged the order for six years and had continuously absented himself from the proceedings. The court noted the absence of any challenge or interim protection granted to the petitioner, and concluded that he was duty bound to comply with the order but chose to defy it. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of merit and the petitioner's failure to appear before the concerned court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's challenge to the issuance of processes under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and his continuous absence from the proceedings despite the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to challenge the order for six years and his continuous absence from the proceedings. The court emphasized the petitioner's duty to comply with the order and his failure to appear before the concerned court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as without merit, highlighting the petitioner's non-compliance with the court's order and his continuous absence from the proceedings.
ORDER :
Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2016/26.08.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 90(C)/2010 whereunder the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati has been pleased to pass orders under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The prosecution story read as follows:-
(ii) the allegation is/are the complainant and Sahina Khatoon are legal owners of Cadastral Survey Plot No. 430, 434, 435, 436 and 466 situated at village Jamuna, Anchal and P.S. Imamaganj, District-Gaya, from which new plot No. 541, 642, 54 and 603 respectively have been carved out;
(iii) the complainant had constructed 6 shops along with a verandah, store room and kitchen. One shop was let out to Smt. Munni Bibi for her tailoring business;
(iv) the complainant's land was at the nearest range of the bridge being constructed on the river Sorhar. Accused petitioner Naujit Singh Kalsi approached the complainant and took 2 rooms on rent for Rs.2500/- per month;
(v) On 15.03.2019, the complainant’s younger brother informed him that accused Naujit Singh Kalsi, his clerk and other persons being the staffs of the said contractor are destroying the crops on his plots, despite requests not to do so, for which a ‘Sanha’ was lodged in Imamganj Police Station for necessary action. After lodging of ‘Sanha’, the petitioner and the accused Roshan Kumar apologized and offered to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation;
(vi) however, the above accuseds refused to pay the compensation. The complainant on 23.07.2009 went to the spot and saw the lifting of soil by tractors from his land.
(vii) the accused petitioner and Roshan Kumar on being questioned, accepted their fault and again offered to compensate the complainant. The Complainant brought the same to the notice of S.S.P., Gaya vide petition dated 23.07.2009;
(viii) the complainant's brother further informed the complainant of other illegal acts on the land of the complainant. He again went on the spot and asked the petitioner and the accused Roshan Kumar whereafter he was informed that it was for the construction of “Link Road”;
(ix) the complainant then asked the accused to stop the work. However, the accused persons with the help of local police continued and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Complainant was thus compelled to file Title Suit No. 446 of 2009 before the Court of the learned Sub-Judge-I, Gaya for appropriate reliefs which is still pending;
(x) on 17.02.2010, at about 6 AM, the complainant learnt that the accused is forming an unlawful assembly on the spot and were also causing damage to his shops;
(xi) he accordingly requested the accused persons to stop but to no avail. One of the accused stopped the complainant, while the other accused persons removed the articles from the shop of Munni Begum and the aforementioned act were seen by the persons who had assembled on the spot;
(xii) the accused persons thus committed illegal acts, insulted the complainant and caused wrongful loss Rupees 1 Lakh by damaging his shop and removing articles from there. Further, they also caused loss of Rs.50,000/- to Munni Begum by removing the articles;
(xiii) although the complainant approached the local police, no action was taken. Left with no alternative, the complaint was filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences under which cognizance were taken was/were under Section 147, 427, 323 and 504, all of which are bailable in nature. Accordingly, he moved for surrender cum bail before the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati which
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the accused persons to comply with court orders, especially when they have not challenged the orders and have continuously absented the....
A magistrate must apply mind and provide reasoning when taking cognizance of complaints; failure to do so allows for quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing breach of peace and the different objectives of the civil court and the Magistrate in cases of possession disputes.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 and attachment of property under Section 83 must comply with the mandatory requirements of la....
The court ruled that maintaining status quo under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is justified to prevent a breach of public peace in ongoing land ownership disputes.
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
