High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Wanchoo,Bapna
NAHAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Revn. 14 Of 1951
Decided On : 05/10/1951
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTIONS 107, 145, 146 - JOINT POSSESSION - ORDER - SECURITY TO KEEP THE PEACE - MAGISTRATE'S POWER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 107 AND 145 SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between two parties over immovable property, leading to reports under Sections 145 and 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) being filed with the police. The Magistrate initiated mixed proceedings under both sections, finding that one Bara was in the joint possession of the parties and ordering them to get their rights determined by a civil court within three months. He also directed them to execute bonds to keep the peace for three months.
Finding of the Court:
1. A Magistrate is competent to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 and 145, Cr. P. C. simultaneously in suitable cases. 2. Where a Magistrate finds after enquiry that the property in dispute is in the joint possession of the parties, he should drop the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and cannot proceed to pass an order under Section 146 Cr. P. C. 3. Where proceedings have been taken exclusively under Section 145 Cr. P. C., the Magistrate cannot pass an order under Section 107 Cr. P. C. in those very proceedings, but can start fresh proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. if necessary.
Issues: 1. Whether a Magistrate is competent to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 and 145, Cr. P. C. simultaneously? 2. What order should be passed by a Magistrate if he finds after enquiry under Section 145 that the property in dispute is in the joint possession of the parties? 3. Whether a Magistrate is competent to ask for security to keep the peace under Section 107 Cr. P. C. where (a) the proceedings were initiated under Sections 145 and 107 Cr. P. C. and (b) where the proceedings were taken exclusively under Section 145 Cr. P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 145(10) of the Cr. P. C. clarifies that proceedings under Section 145 do not derogate the Magistrate's powers under Section 107. 2. An order under Section 145 can only be passed in favor of a party in exclusive possession of the property, and no declaration of joint possession can be made under Section 145 Cr. P. C. 3. If the Magistrate finds that none of the parties was in possession or is unable to decide which party was in possession, he may attach the property under Section 146(1) Cr. P. C. 4. Where the Magistrate holds that both parties are in joint possession, it cannot be said that he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties was in possession, and therefore Section 146 Cr. P. C. does not apply. 5. The Magistrate cannot pass an order under Section 107 Cr. P. C. in mixed proceedings under Sections 145 and 107 Cr. P. C., but can start fresh proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. if necessary.
Final Decision: The reference by the Sessions Judge is accepted. The order of the Magistrate relating to Bara No. 2 declaring joint possession is set aside. The order under Section 107 Cr. P. C. passed by the Magistrate is also set aside.
( 1 ) THIS revision has arisen out of a reference by the Ses. J. of Tonk in a revision before him out of proceedings under Sections 145 and 107, Criminal P. C. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge of this Court, he referred the following three points for decision by a Division Bench:-
(1) "whether a Magistrate was competent to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 and 145 Cr. P. C. simultaneously; (2) In case the Magistrate finds after enquiry under Section 145 cr. P. C. that the property in dispute was in joint possession of the parties then (a) what should be the nature of the order if one would be passed under Section 145 Cr. P. C. or (b) should the Magistrate proceed to pass an order under Section 146 Cr. P. C. , and (3) In case the finding of the Magistrate was under Clause (2) above, and he apprehended a breach of peace between the parties while each attempted to oust the other, was he competent to ask for security to keep the peace under Section 107 Cr. P. C. where (a) the proceedings were initiated under Section 145 and 107 Cr. P. C. and (b) where the proceedings were taken exclusively under Section 145 Cr. P. C.
( 2 ) A brief reference to the facts of this case may be given at the outset. The case started on two reports of the police of Thana Kili - one under Section 145 and the other under Section 107 - as the dispute between two parties was about certain immovable property. The report under Section 107 was against both parties. The Magistrate who tried the case instead of taking separate proceedings - and there should have been three proceedings, namely, one under section 145 and another under Section 107 against one party and the third under section 107 against the second party - mixed up everything in one proceeding. It appears that the learned Magistrate gave notice to the parties under Section 145 and also asked them to show cause why security should not be taken from them. But it seems that the notice under Section 112. Criminal P. C. was not read over to the parties when they appeared in court. The case related to two baras. So far as one Bara is concerned, the Magistrate found in favour of one party and passed an order under Section 145. So far as the second Bara is concerned, the Magistrate found that both parties were jointly in possession and directed them to get their rights determined by a civil Court within three months. He also held that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and, therefore, ordered the parties to execute bonds to keep the peace for a period of three months.
( 3 ) WE now come immediately to the three questions that have been put to us for reply. The first question is whether a Magistrate is competent to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 and 145, Cr. P. C. simultaneously. Whatever may have been the uncertainty of the law in this connection, the matter is set at rest by the introduction of Sub-section (10) in Section 145 by the legislature by the criminal P. C. (Amendment) Act 1923 (XVIII (18) of i923 ). This Sub-section reads as follows: "nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under Section 107. " this was in accordance with the view taken by a five Judges Bench of the calcutta High Court in emperor v. Abbas, 39 Cal. 150, where it Was held:
"there is no conflict between Sections 107 and 145, Criminal P. C. and the fact that there is a dispute concerning land, likely to cause a breach of the peace, does not deprive a Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 107, Criminal P. C. where he is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity, or to do. any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. "
It is, therefore, within the discretion of a Magistrate to proceed simultaneously or not under Sections 145 and 107, Criminal P. C. in cases in which there is a dispute between two partie
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.