SADHAN KUMAR GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application has been preferred under section 482 of the Cr. PC against the judgment dated 20. 2. 2006 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur in Criminal Motion No. 53 of 2005.

( 2 ) CASE of the petitioner is that she is the lawful owner in respect of the plot no. 82813 under Khatian No. 316 of Mouza Mazedihi. In order to protect her dwelling house, she wanted to construct a boundary wall on 31. 5. 2005. At that time the respondents forcibly stopped the said work. Finding no other way out the petitioner filed an application under section 144 of the Cr. PC before the ld. Magistrate at Durgapur who was pleased to call for report from the B. L. and l. R. O. and the O/c Durgapur P. S. After receiving the report, ld. Magistrate was satisfied and was pleased to start a proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC and directed the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the land in question and also directed the O/c to enforce the order. Against the said order, respondent moved the Court of the ld. Additional Sessions judge, Durgapur, who, by his impugned judgment, was pleased to set aside the order of the ld. Executive Magistrate passed in the proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC. Being dissatisfied with the said order, this revisional application has been preferred. The petitioner has claimed that the ld. Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order, as there was apprehension of the breach of piece, as it appeared from the enquiry report of the officials concerned. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge was not at all justified in ignoring those reports and in setting aside the order of the ld. Magistrate only on the ground that since the dispute is purely civil in nature so it should be decided in the appropriate civil forum. The order, as passed by the ld. Additional Sessions judge, being illegal, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the said order.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the opposite parties claimed that the ld. Additional sessions Judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. According to them, there was a longstanding dispute going on in between the parties over the use of the pathway and as such, ld. Additional Sessions Judge was justified in observing that the said dispute should be resolved in the Civil Court. They have prayed for dismissal of the revisional application.

( 4 ) I have heard the submissions of the ld. Advocate for both the sides. Admittedly, it appears that a dispute is going in between the parties over the use of a pathway. While the opposite parties are claiming that they have acquired a legal right for using the pathway as they are using the same for a long period, the petitioner claimed that the land exclusively belonged to her and she is the rightful owner of the said land and has got the authority to make any construction over the same. So it appears that there exists a clear dispute over the user of the said land amongst the parties. At the time of argument, my attention was drawn to the decisions reported in AIR 1981 SC 2198 (Gulam abbas and Ors. vs. State of UP.), AIR 1978 SC 422 (Gulam Abbas and Anr. vs. Md. Ibrahim and Ors.) and 1983 (2) SCC 153 (Md. Ibrahim vs. City Magistrate, baranashi ). It is the settled position that an Executive Magistrate can pass a prohibitory order in a proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC if he is satisfied that there exists an apprehension of breach of peace in between the parties in the locality. So far as the order of the ld. Magistrate is concerned, it appears that he, before passing the order, obtained report from the B. L. and L. R. O. as well from the O/c of the concerned P. S. After considering those reports, ld. Magistrate was satisfied to draw up a proceeding and passed an order. This order was an interim order, as the ld. Magistrate fixed another date for consideration of the show-cause by the opposite parties. The order to that effect, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document