Revival of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC after a long period of dormancy, where apprehension of breach of peace had ceased to exist and rights had been determined by a competent court, constituted an abuse of process.

1. - This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order of the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated September 16, 1991 confirming the revival of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur after the expiry of a period of more than ten years, arises under the following circumstances.

2. In October 1973 petitioner's watchman Phoolia Nath had complained to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur and also the Station House Office, Police Station, Khandar, Distt. Sawai Madhopur that the respondents and their men, in order to take forcible possession of the land of khasra No. 40/2, admeasuring 5 Bighas situate at village Jailal Ka Pura and the guwar crop standing therein, had attacked upon him with lethal weapons. After conducting necessary enquiry into the reported incident the S.H.O., Police Station, Khandar reported to the learned Magistrate that there existed a likelihood of breach of peace due to the dispute between the parties over the possession of khasra No. 40/2. On receipt of such report on 24.11.73 the learned Magistrate registered a case for proceedings under Section 107/116 Criminal Procedure Code against the respondents. However, on respondent's stating that the parties were already facing such proceedings separately the learned Magistrate directed that the proceedings under Section 107/116 Criminal Procedure Code be dropped and, instead, proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code be initiated. Simultaneously he directed attachment of khasra No. 40/2 and appointed the Tehsildar, Khandar as Receiver thereof. Aggrieved by such order of the Magistrate dated 24.11.73 (wrongly mentioned as 26.11.73) Sri Phoolia approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Revision but the learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 4.8.75 in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1974/20 of 1975, dismissed his revision petition and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 24.11.73. On receipt of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4.8.75 the learned Magistrate, consigned his file to the record room on 6.8.1975.

3. It appears that during the meanwhile the parties had approached the Revenue authorities for getting their titles to khasra No. 40/2 settled. The land of khasra No. 40/2 stood allotted to Sri Bharat Singh under the Allotment Rules of 1970. The respondents challenged such allotment before the Revenue authorities including Collector, Sawai Madhopur. The Advisory Committee, vide decision dated 16.10.75, had recommended for upholding the allotment. The respondents challenged the recommendation of the Advisory Committee before the Collector, Sawai Madhopur. When respondent's such application/objection under Rule 14(4) of the Allotment Rules was still pending the parties entered into a compromise on 23.8.78. According to the compromise arrived at between them the petitioner was to remain in his continued possession over khasra No. 40/2 and the respondents would not have any objection to that position. But such a compromise does not appear to have been approved of by the Revenue authorities. The Collector Sawai Madhopur vide his order dated 24.9.79 in Revision Petition No. 63/77 held that the recommendation of the Advisory Committee could not be approved and that the allotment in the name of Shri Bharat Singh petitioner would stand cancelled.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings for cancellation of allotment the petitioner appears to have approached the Court of Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur for ascertainment of his title to and possession over plot No. 40/2 by filing a regular suit of injunction No. 90/73 under the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In that suit the petitioner prayed for interim injunction under Section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act but such application was rejected on 26.3.74. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide his order dated 30.4.76 in appeal No. 29