The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings under Section 145 and Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should only be initiated when there is a likelihood of breach of peace in a given locality, and private disputes between parties, which do not disturb public order, should be resolved in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.3.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners, namely, (1) Md. Osman Ali Saikia, and (2) Harun Saikia impugning the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia in Case No.53/2020 drawing up the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as order dated 09.11.2020 of the Executive Magistrate, Rangia directing the attachment of land of the petitioners under Section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

a. The petitioners and the respondents are related to each other. They inherited 17 bigha 12 lecha of land, from common ancestor. Though, in the year 1972 a partition deed was executed between the parties, however, no partition by metes and bounds was done between the parties. The petitioner No.1, as plaintiff, instituted a suit in respect of a plot of land measuring 2 katha 3 lecha covered by Dag no. 1634 of KP Patta no. 144 of village Nagaon, Mouza, Karara Police Station Baihata Chariali under Kamalpur Revenue Circle. The said plot of land is the part of the ancestral land measuring 17 bigha 12 lecha, which comprised of several dags. The petitioner prayed for relief of declaration of their right, title and interest and also for partition of their aforementioned ancestral land.

b. The respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement and also their counterclaim. The aforesaid suit was registered as Title Suit No. 25/2011. The Court of learned Munsif, Rangia decreed the suit and dismissed the counterclaim of the respondent and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, to partition the suit land by meets and bounds. However, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 06/2017 and by judgment and ordered dated 09.11.2018, the learned Appellate Court of Civil Judge, Kamrup set aside the judgment of learned Munsiff, Rangia on the ground of non-maintainability of a suit for partition of a land which has already been partitioned. Though, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the First Appellate Court of Civil Judge, Kamrup in Title Appeal No. 06/2017, however, learned First Appellate Court observed that the petitioner No.1 (plaintiff) has the right, title and interest over the suit land and it also upheld the decision of learned Trial Court with regard to the counterclaim of the respondents, which was dismissed by learned Trial Court.

c. Thus, by the judgment dated 09.11.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 06/2017, though, it was observed that the present petitioner No. 1 has the right, title and interest over the suit land, however, no relief was granted to the present petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention herein that no further appeal was preferred by any of the parties against the said judgment passed by learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.06/2017.

d. Thereafter, on 22.04.2020, the respondents filed a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Baihata Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that in the year 1972, the petitioner No. 1 and his 3 sons dispossessed the respondent from the land, measuring 2 katha 3 lecha covered by Dag no. 1634 under KP Patta no. 144, though the said land was partitioned. It was also stated in the said complaint that in the title appeal instituted by the respondent, the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kamrup has upheld the partition, however, the petitioners have not given the plot of land to the respondent and now they are trying to build a house thereon.

e. On receipt of the said complaint, the Baihata police regi