Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Vivek Mishra S/o Nityanand Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 66 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2022
Section 144 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - [Title Suit No. 77 of 1998, Execution Case No. 3 of 1999, Title Suit No. 72 of 2004, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2019, Complaint Case No. 12 of 2020-21] - The court quashed the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.O. Deoghar, considering the mandate of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the background of the case, particularly the blanket order passed by respondent no. 3. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. and emphasized that the order had lost its force, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.O. Deoghar in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 48 of 2020. The case involved a series of legal proceedings related to property disputes and execution cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order had been passed against the mandate of law and had lost its force as per Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. The court also noted that there was no meaning in passing an order to permanently restrain either of the parties from the disputed site, as both the orders were not in existence at the time of the judgment.
Issues: The issues involved the legality and validity of the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C., the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.M., and the examination of the cancellation of registration deed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the finding that the impugned order had lost its force as per Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. The court also considered the lack of meaning in passing an order to permanently restrain either of the parties from the disputed site when both orders were not in existence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.O. Deoghar and disposed of the petition.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.12.2020 passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.O. Deoghar in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 48 of 2020. On 23.03.2021 the following order was passed in this case and on that day the impugned order was stayed:
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
Vide order dated 18.02.2021, notice was directed to be issued upon opposite party no. 6. Undelivered cover with A/D has been kept on the record.
I.A. No. 1288 of 2021 has been filed for staying the operation of the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 3.
Title Suit No. 77 of 1998 was filed by Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb. Chiranjeev Kumar Deb executed two registered sale deeds bearing number 2169 and 2170 of 1998 in favour of respondent no. 6, her 2 husband namely Shashi Kumar respectively. The sale deeds were executed behind the back of Late Dilip Kumar Ray by Chiranjeev Kumar Deb on the basis of the alleged power of attorney. On the basis of the sale deeds, respondent no. 6 and her husband Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb filed a joint compromise petition before the court below at Deoghar. Pursuant to that they have been able to obtain favourable decree dated 04.01.1999 by the learned court below in Title Suit No. 77 of 1998. Dilip Kumar Ray and all the legal heir of Kamala Prasad were not made party. Pursuant to decree in the said title suit, respondent no. 6 and her husband Shashi Kumar filed an application before the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking possession of the scheduled property, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 50 of 1998, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.1998. Respondent no. 6, Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb again filed an execution case being Execution Case No. 3 of 1999. The daughter of Late Kamala Prasad came to know about the said execution case and she filed an objection petition dated 03.05.1999. By taking notice of the said objection, Execution Case No. 3 of 1999 was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.1999 and held that decree is a nullity and is rendered nonexecutable due to fraud played by respondent no. 6, Shashi Kumar and Chiranjeev Kumar Deb. Thereafter, Title Suit No. 72 of 2004 was filed by Late Dilip Kumar Roy before the court of Civil Judge-1, Deoghar praying therein that sale deeds number 2169 and 2170 of 1998 be declared null and void. Respondent no. 6 filed Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2019, which is pending in the court below. Respondent no. 6 and Shashi Kumar have again filed compromise petition. The legal heir of Late Kamala Prasad, who were party in Title Suit No. 72 of 2004 executed a registered partition deed dated 10.05.2019, which was challenged by respondent no. 6 with her husband Shashi Kumar by filing Complaint Case No. 12 of 2020- 21 and notice has been issued upon the heir of Late Kamala Prasad which has been challenged by Mrs. Arti Roy Choudhary before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7 of 2021. On the basis of the sale deed, which was declared null and void, respondent no. 6 filed a complaint case before respondent no. 3 for initiating of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. alleging that illegal construction is being done on her property. In the said writ
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the context of the impugned order and the subsequent legal proceedings.
A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot adjudicate on title issues in proceedings under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., and such orders become infructuous over time.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing breach of peace and the different objectives of the civil court and the Magistrate in cases of possession disputes.
In summary Section 145 proceedings, unobjected photocopies are admissible evidence alongside local reports for possession finding; no interference if conclusion not perverse.
Failure to follow statutory parameters under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can lead to the quashing of an order directing process, as established in previous judgments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
