An order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a prerequisite for issuing an injunction under Section 142; failure to comply renders such orders illegal.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order contained in Letter No.140 dated 28.06.2024, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of this Writ Petition (Cr.), issued under the pen and signature of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Latehar in purported exercise of power under Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby and where under, the respondent No.3, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, has directed to stop the construction work being done by the petitioner in his Raiyati land appertaining to Khata No.400, Plot No.4 and 6, area 13 decimals and 62 decimals respectively in Mauza- Chandwa, even though there was no material to suggest that there was any imminent danger of injury of a serious kind to the public and when the learned S.D.O./Sub-Divisional Magistrate had not made any order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the land in question originally belonged to Sheikh Rahmat Ali which upon death of the said Sheikh Rahmat Ali was inherited by his grandson namely Vasarat Hussain. Vasarat Hussain transferred the land in question to the petitioner by way of two registered sale- deeds bearing Nos.104 and 489 both of the year 2023, the copy of the said sale- deeds have been annexed as Annexure-1 and 1/1 to this Writ Petition (Cr.). After purchase, the petitioner got the land mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No.598 of 2022-23 and Mutation Case No.694 of 2022-23. In both the cases, the relevant order was passed on 05.04.2023 and consequently correction slip was issued and the name of the petitioner has been entered in Register II. The respondent No.6 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), got initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. vide Misc. Case No.577 of 2023 against the petitioner in the court of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) vide order dated 06.02.2024 held that the petitioner has purchased the land in question and dropped the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. but arbitrarily vide the impugned letter, the respondent No.4 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) being the Circle Officer, Latehar stopped the petitioner from carrying out the construction over his own land and after being questioned by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 showed to the petitioner the impugned order vide Letter No.140/Nya. dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 in purported exercise of the power under Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any order passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no way the respondent No.3 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), could have exercised the power under Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the impugned letter being Letter No.140/Nya. dated 28.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, is not sustainable in law having been passed without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding Ltd. v. The District Revenue Officer & Others reported in Crl. O.P. No.20902, 20903 of 99 dated 16.03.2001 wherein the learned single Judge of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has observed that for issuing an order of injunction under Section of the 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a must. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case as no order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on the other hand vehemently