Honble SINGH, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non- petitioner No. 2.

(2). In this petition, the question which arises for determination is, whether the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (North), Udaipur was competent to pass orders under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of immovable property which was in dispute between the parties. The facts so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as below :

On 22.1.97, Prakash Vaishnav submitted a report in writing at the Police Station Dhanmandi, Udaipur in which he stated that his maternal grad father Shri Raman Lal was in possession of a residential house situated in Nalwaya Chowk, Dhanmandi, Udaipur. Shri Raman Lal Acharya expired on 21.1.97. It was further stated in the report that when the complainant and other relatives were attending to the funeral rites Shri Dev Kishan Kumawat, Shri Hari Singh Kumawat, Shri Amrit Lal Kumawat, Shri Ghanshyam Kumawat, Prakash, Dev Kishan Panwala, Ramesh Patawa and several other persons went to the house of Shri Raman Lal Acharya and placed their own locks on the door which had already been locked (after the death of Shri Raman Lal). It was further alleged that when the above named persons were asked not to place their locks, they appeared to be ready for a quarrel and they threatened the complainant and his relatives. On the basis of the report submitted by Prakash Vaishnav, the Police registered a case under Section 147 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3). During the investigation of the case, the investigating officer went to the disputed property and found that on the first floor of the temple of Murli Manoharji there was a room. Just below that room, there was a room on the ground floor. The two rooms were connected by stairs. There were two locks placed on the door of the room situated on the first floor. On enquiry, he came to know that one of the two locks had been placed by members of Kumawat community and the other lock had been placed by the Pujari. The lock which was reported to be placed by the Kumawat community was opened by Shri Leeladhar and the lock which was reported to have been placed by the Pujari was opened by Shri Prakash, in the pre- sence of the investigating officer. Inside the room household items were found to be lying. After inspecting the site, the investigating officer prepared the site-plan. Both the locks were again placed on the door of the room. But, in place of returning the keys to Prakash Chandra and Leeladhar, the keys of the locks were seized by the investigating officer.

(4). After the seizure of the keys (which fact has been mentioned in the site-plan and inspection-note dated 22.1.97), the petitioners Amrit Lal and others as well as non-petitioner No. 2 moved applications before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (North), Udaipur under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that possession of the room should be given to them.

(5). The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (North), Udaipur rejected the application filed by the petitioners and allowed

the application filed by non- petitioner No. 2. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate reads as under :

``In the result, the application Cr. Misc. Appl. No. 51/97 filed by Sarva Shri Amritlal, Devkishan, Harisingh, Ghanshyam, Prakash and Ramesh is rejected and the application Cr. Misc. App. No. 66/97 filed by

Motilal s/o Nandlal R/o Nalwaya Chowk is allowed and it is ordered that the immovable property seized by the Dhanmandi Police during investigation of the crime registered under FIR No. 9/97 u/ss. 147 & 448 of the I.P.C. be made over to the applicant Motilal on supurdginama until the disposal of the case on furnishing by him a recogniza- nce of Rs. one lakh and a surity in the same amount undertaking that he sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document