Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Sri. Sridham Biswas S/o Lt. Sukhomoy Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura and Anrs. – Respondents
Crl Petn. No.52 of 2015
Decided On : 06-08-2018
Section 482 - Land Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 107, 145, 146 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which constitute a scheme for resolving disputes likely to cause a breach of peace concerning land or water. The court highlighted the discretionary power of the Magistrate to attach the subject of dispute in an emergency situation and the temporary nature of the order of attachment, emphasizing that it is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute between co-owners, leading to a complaint and subsequent proceedings under Sections 107, 145, and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the property and appointed the Officer-in-Charge of the Kakraban Police Station as its receiver to maintain peace and tranquility in the locality. The Sessions Judge set aside the order, leading to the petitioner's appeal under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of attachment was justified due to the emergent situation and the likelihood of a breach of peace. It held that the order was interlocutory and not liable to be interfered with by the Sessions Court. The court also observed that the Sessions Judge had misinterpreted the provisions and quashed the order passed by the Sessions Judge, restoring the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to attach the property under Section 146 of Cr.P.C, the nature of the order as interlocutory, and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C, emphasizing the discretionary power of the Magistrate in an emergency situation and the temporary nature of the order of attachment. It also focused on the definition of 'interlocutory' and the absence of revision against such orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, directing expeditious disposal of the case.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the order dated 03.06.2015 passed in Crl. Rev. 1(1) of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur.
2. Out of a land dispute between the co-owners, one Smt. Renu Bala Biswas wife of Sri Sridam Biswas lodged a complaint to the Kakraban Police Station and, accordingly Kakraban Police Station has drawn up a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C and forwarded the matter to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District by filing a police report.
3. During the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. another complaint was lodged by Sri Sridham Biswas of village Uttar Tulamura P/S Kakraban against the Umakanta Biswas and others with a prayer to draw up a proceeding under Section 145/144 of Cr.P.C. on apprehension of serious breach of peace and illegal, unauthoritative and arbitrary interference by the opposite party-respondents in regard to the possession of the suit land under the co-ownership of the complainant as well as the opposite party-respondents in the present petition.
4. After receipt of the complain, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura registered it as case No. Misc 210/2014 and issued notice upon the opposite parties to contest the proceeding. Accordingly, after seeking for some adjournments, the opposite party-respondents (hereinafter referred to the opposite parties) ultimately, filed their written statements. After completing the exchange of pleadings by the parties to the proceeding, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, had fixed further dates to proceed with subsequent stages of proceeding in accordance with law. But the opposite parties did not appear and was seeking for adjournment. Ultimately, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur has passed an order on 22.12.2014 which is reproduced below:-
“Today the date fixed for hearing and order
The 1st party member/petitioner & opposite party no-4 are present along with their engaged counsel and opposite party nos.1 & 2 are absent by filing petition for time.
Heard and considered.
The time petition filed is rejected, earlier on number of dates opposite party nos.1 & 2 did not appears even not taken any steps.
The petitioner and ops Nos.1 & 4 submitted their respective written statement. Petitioner and his wife Smt. Renu Bala Biswas raised complaint against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and other alleging that the O.P No.1 & 2 and their wives committed violence on them and in this regard two Misc Case U/S 107 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 268/2014 & 308/2014 were registered on the basis of the P.R. submitted by the O/C Kakraban P.S. before the ld. Court, which are pending now.
Apart from this the petitioner and opp. No-4 further raised complaint dated 17.06.2014 against the opposite party no. 1 & 2 by alleging that on several occasions said opposite parties has given threatening to dispossess the petitioner & his wife from the proceeding land and to snatch the green crops from the proceeding land by using brutal force, even they physically tortured the petitioner who has taken treatment from Govt. Hospital and also submitted medical prescription, which is speaking about the injuries of the petitioner.
Even after expiry of earlier tow dates, the opposite party no-1 & 2 did not raise any material objections either oral or written against the said allegations made in the petitioner of the petitioner & O.P. No.4 and also on the verbal submission made by the engaged counsels of the petitioner & O.P No-4.
And again today, the petitioner said as well as opposite party No.4 Hari Kamal Biswas has filed petitioner for passing necessary order for appointment of receiver to protect their right of enjoyment over the green crops in the proceeding land which is joint in nature. The petitioner & O.P No.4 alleges in their respective petition dated 22.12.14 and as well as submission made through their coun
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
