Point of Law : Section 145 of Code concerned with restoration of possession and prevention of breach of peace and tranquillity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. K. Murry, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent No.1.

2. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia, Kamrup (Rural) Assam, in connection with Case No. 47/2020, under Sections 145/146(1) of the Cr.P.C. 1973. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order the learned Executive Magistrate had drawn up a proceeding under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. and also attached the disputed land as per provision of section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:-

“On 29.07.2020, Shri Nayan Moni Kalita -the respondent No.2 lodged one F.I.R with the Officer-Incharge Kamalpur P.S. to the effect that he is the owner as well as the possession holder of a plot of land, measuring 4 Kathas and 15 Lechas, situated at Athgaon, bearing Kheraj Myadi Patta No. 108, Dag No. 1779 of Puwanar Mauza. On 29.07.2020, at about 9.00 AM, one Satish Deka (petitioner herein) of Kusumpur village, under Kamapur P.S., committed criminal trespass into the said plot of land and forcefully constructed one Tin house and when he raised objection then Satish Deka chased and assaulted him with a ‘dao’ and also threatened to kill him. On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-In-Charge, Kamalpur P.S. has endorsed ASI Dhireshwar Kalita to conduct preliminary investigation. The ASI, after preliminary investigation, had filed one Non-F.I.R Case No. 14/Pt-I/2020, under Sections 107/145 Cr.P.C., dated 04.08.2020. Upon receipt of the said report on 25.08.2020, the Executive Magistrate, Rangia, apprehending serious breach of peace between the parties over the possession of disputed land, drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., directing both the parties, to appear before him along with the relevant documents in support of their respective claims and also considering the petition filed by the 1st party, Shri Nayan Moni Kalita on 24.08.2020, supported by an affidavit and also hearing the counsels and having been satisfied that both the parties are trying to occupy the same plot of land and also considering the emergent situation, had attached the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., preventing both the parties to get access into the disputed land till disposal of the case.”

4. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner, Shri Satish Deka approached this Court under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 25.08.2020, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia, in connection with Case No. 47/2020, under Sections 145/146(1) of the Cr.P.C., on the grounds that :-

(a) That, the learned Executive Magistrate has committed manifest error in drawing up the proceeding and that the order is bad in law and that without going through the materials on record in its proper perspective when drawn up the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.,

(b) That, the dispute between parties is merely a civil dispute concerning right, title and interest over the disputed land;

(c) That, there was nothing before the learned Court below to suggest that there was serious breach of peace and public tranquility caused by the petitioner.

(d) That, the petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Executive Magistrate, in connection with the Case No.47/2020, praying for attachment order in regard to the disputed land under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., is not supported by any title deed or documents to show that mother of the respondent No.2 is the title holder of the disputed land.

(e) That, the police report is not supported by any independent witnesses so as to suggest serious breach of peace and public tranquility, to attach the disputed land and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impug