JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. This criminal petition has been preferred by the petitioner/1st party Raja Chamuah against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Crl. Revision No. 26(4)2016 where by the learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhakuakhana in Case No. 2/2015 u/s 107 Cr.P.C refusing to proceed with the case under section 133 Cr. P.C and asked the parties to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality.

2. The material facts, which have led to the making of the present criminal petition may be set out as follows-

3. A proceeding was drawn up under section 107 Cr.P.C by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhakuakhana on the basis of a police report received from Dhakuakhana P.S in connection with one Non-FIR case No. 01/2015 wherein complain was filed by the present petitioner Raja Chamuah apprehending the breach of peace in their locality as, the dispute arises regarding the closure of a road on 03.01.2015 by Sri. Lakhya Chamuah, Kaushal Chamuah and Dipak Chamuah (respondent herein). As per the police report the disputed land had been using by the petitioner and three/four other families of that locality as a road prior to 03.01.2015 and on 03.01.2015 the opposites parties have closed the road and thereby creating obstruction to the petitioner and other three/four families and there was apprehension of breach of peace in the locality and submitted to draw up a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C Thereafter on 13.01.2015 some persons namely Rohini Chamuah, Bijoy Chamuah both sons of Lekhan Chamuah, Pinku Chamuah and Gyandeep Chamuah both sons of Snjib Chamuah submitted a complain before the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur alleging about the closure of the said road by Lakhya Chamuah, Kaushal Chamuah and Dipak Chamuah and prayed to draw up a proceeding under section 133 Cr.P.C and the same was endorsed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhakuakhana for taking necessary steps.

4. Accordingly, notice was issued to both the parties and recorded the evidence of witnesses. The first party examined three witnesses and the opposite party also examined four witnesses. After hearing both the sides, the learned SDM, Dhakuakhana comes to the findings that the D/L is a private land as per land record, which is situated on a part of land covered by Dag No. 305 of PP No. 46 of Ghatapara map under Machkhowa Mouza, as such the section 133 Cr.P.C is not applicable and asked the parties to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality under section 107 Cr.P.C vide order dated 12.10.2015 in case No. 2/2015.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned SDM, Dhakuakhana, the present petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur which was also dismissed by order dated 14.03.2016

6. Now the present petition has been preferred challenging the findings of the Ld. revisional court dated 14.03.2016 in criminal petition No. 26(4) 2016.

7. I have heard argument of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for the state but none appears for the respondents.

8. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Buragohain has contended that the learned court below committed great irregularity/illegality in passing the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 both the facts and as well as in law and as such the same is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. On the next it is contended that the public road in question come into existence in the year of 1971 and it is established fact that the same road being used by the local community at large including both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also submitted that the report submitted by the police indicates the land in question was being us

Click Here to Read the rest of this document