IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

------

Md. Juned Ahmad @ Juned Ahmad Diggar, aged about 42 years, son of Md. Yunus, resident of H. No. 55, Ward No. 14, Muslim Tola, Haranchandra Chatarji Road, Purandaha, Deoghar, PO & PS –

Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO & PS – Deoghar,

District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, PO & PS – Deoghar,

District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.

4. Md. Azad @ Azad Mian, Son of Khalil Mian.

5. Md. Zamir Ansari, Son of Kuril Mian @ Md. Abdul Gani.

(Opp. Party Nos. 4 and 5 are resident of Mauza – Purandaha, PO

& PS & District – Deoghar, Jharkhand).

… … Opp. Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate

For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.

For the Opp. Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the prayer to quash the order dated

23.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar has set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, wherein the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar, dropped the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar and basing upon the same a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated vide order dated 02.06.2023 and later on, the same was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar vide order dated 26.06.2024 dropped the proceeding of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 89 of 2023 on the following two grounds:-

I. That as regards the same landed property orders/judgments have been passed by different Courts including Hon’ble High Court and civil proceeding has achieved finality but still issues of title, possession are being raised by rival parties which cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

II. That there is a petition under Section 145(5) Cr.P.C.

filed by the OP with prayer to drop the ongoing proceeding and there is no any information received regarding any existence or likelihood of breach of peace between the parties.

4. Learned Sessions Judge considered the settled principles of law relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunjbihari Vs. Balram & Another reported in (2006) 11 SCC 66 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated upon, the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., is an abuse to the process of Court. Taking a cue from a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalita Prasad Pandey reported in (2000) 4 SCC 440 which is also reported in AIR 2000 SC 1504, wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in every case where a civil suit is filed, proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. would never lie. It is only in case where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the Civil Court that proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. should not be allowed to continue and went on to hold that the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate impugned before it suffers from patent impropriety and is not correct course of action since Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is intended to provide remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of dispute relating to the property.

5. The learned Sessions Judge