AMAL KANTI BHATTACHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this criminal revision the validity of a proceeding Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. pending before an Executive Magistrate has been challenged. The relevant proceeding was initiated on the basis of the following facts :-

( 2 ) THE property in dispute appertains to premises No. 291 Netaji Subhas Road, Asansol and consists of a big hall, about 6500 square feet in area owned by the petitioner No. 1. The said hall is utilised for various types of business by the petitioners including a partnership business with the firm name Singhania Soap Factory. For facilitating the carrying on of different business the hall has been divided into three compartments with partition walls. The aforesaid partnership business of the Singh ania Soap Factory has, however, come to a standstill since 1987 owing to disputes among the partners,

( 3 ) THE parties excepting O. P. No. 1 (i. e. the State) are closely related. On 18. 07. 88 O. P. No. 2 filed a petition Under Sections 447/107/116 (3) Cr. P. C. against the petitioners and others alleging that the opposite parties mentioned therein were trying to take exclusive possession of the Soap Factory by taking law in their own hands and were thereby threatening peace The Magistrate concerned before whom the petitioners filed the petition asked the police to make an enquiry into the matter and directed the maintenance of status quo in the meantime. The police however, locked the entrance door by putting padlocks thereon and prevented the use of the disputed room by any of the parties. The present petitioners thereafter appeared before the Magistrate and placed their case before him. But the Magistrate after hearing the parties converted the proceeding Under Section 144 into one Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and then attached the property Under Section 146. It has been alleged that since then the matter is being dragged unnecessarily and the petitioners have been unduly deprived of the enjoyment of the property. They, therefore, pray for the quashing of the proceeding which has been started Under Section 145 Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) MR. Pradip Ghosh appearing for the petitioners strongly urges that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate has been quite erroneous. According to him the disputed property admittedly belongs to a partnership firm and as such all the partners have right to possess the same until the partner ship is dissolved. He also argues that the conversion of the proceeding Under Section 144 to one Under Section 145 has been illegal in this case as the scope of the two sections is different and having regard to the right of possession claimed by the parties in this case there were no ingredients for starting a proceeding Under Section 145.

( 5 ) MR. Milan Mukherjee appearing for the opposite parties supports the action taken by the Magistrate and submits that the propriety of the continuance of the proceeding Under Section 145 has already been tested in a writ petition filed by the petitioners and the learned Judge in the writ proceeding did not find the 145 proceeding to be irregular.

( 6 ) THE main contention of Mr. Ghosh is that the dispute between the parties does not attract the provisions of Section 145 Cr. P. C. and that it is actually not a dispute concerning land or water within the meaning of the said section. The partnership in respect of the Soap Factory is admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted that the business of the Factory has been stopped for a few years. It was alleged in the petition filed by the opposite parties Under Section 144 that they were being threatened to be dispossessed by the present petitioners and there was serious apprehension of breach of peace. Mr. Ghosh's contention is that possession of partners is the possession of the agents of the firm and that there arises no question of any of the partner's claiming any exclusive right of possession in preference to others. Mr. Ghosh cites several decisions in support of his argu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document