Sr. No.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU C R M C N o . 1 9 0 / 2 0 1 9 Reserved on: 30.03.2026 Pronounced on: 08.04.2026 Uploaded on:-08.04.2026.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Yes Chanchal Singh S/O Sh. Bajar Singh, R/O Lower Barnai, Tehsil & District Jammu .....Petitioner through his son Ranjeet Singh Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankesh Chandel, Adv.

V/S Hans Raj S/O Mann Singh R/O Lower Barnai, Tehsil & District Jammu. .....Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. G S Thakur, Adv.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sections 561-A of J&K CrPC (akin to Sections 482 of CrPC and 528 of BNSS) seeks quashing of order dated 28.01.2019, passed by the Court of ld. 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No.146 titled ‘Hans Raj V. Chanchal Singh’ whereby the Revision was allowed and the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jammu on an application under Section 145 CrPC initiated by the respondent – Hans Raj, had been set-aside, allegedly being totally illegal and contrary to the settled position of law.

2. The impugned order has been challenged and assailed on the grounds, that the same was passed against law and facts of the case; that the petitioner, being recorded owner of the land in question and the respondent and his sons being alien to the land in question having no concern, whatsoever, had no occasion to file the petition under Section 145 CrPC and the learned ADM Jammu had rightly withdrawn and vacated ex parte order of attachment dated 06.01.2016 passed in haste without evaluating the circumstances for breach of peace, which warranted the attachment of the land in question; that the revisional court had not appreciated this factual aspect of the matter and committed a serious illegality in again setting-aside the order dated 11.10.2018 and remanding the case back, when already two rounds of same proceedings were over; that the ADM Jammu had passed the order dated 11.10.2018, after proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, hearing the arguments advanced by them before him rightly withdrawn the preliminary order dated 06.01.2016 and, as such, order passed by the ADM Jammu, set aside by the revisional court, was perfectly legal and valid order, which needed no interference in the revision petition filed by the respondents; that the revisional court had set aside the order passed by the ADM Jammu on 11.10.2018, on the ground that this order was announced on 04.10.2018 but the same was passed on 11.10.2018 on a wrong notion, as the same was announced on 04.10.2018 and was forwarded on 11.10.2018.

3. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the revisional court is not sustainable in law, in view of the fact that the ld. Revisional court had made a specific observation that the order was passed on 04.10.2018 but was announced on 11.10.2018, whereas the fact that the matter is that the order was passed on 04.10.2018 and its copies were endorsed to the SHO P/S Domana on 11.10.2018 for compliance and necessary action; and the revisional court has taken a wrong view of it.

4. He also argued that the learned ADM Jammu had revoked the earlier order, whereby attachment of the land had been made on the basis of his enquiry that there was no threat to breach of peace, as is required to be considered under Section 145 CrPC before withdrawing such an order. The learned Sr. counsel, further, argued that during the pendency of this petition, a civil appeal was decided against an injunction order qua the parties, regarding the subject land passed by the court of Principal District Judge Jammu in a Civil Appeal No.139/2019 titled ‘Hans Raj & Ors. V. Chanchal Singh’ decided on 29.06.2024 against the order dated 23.09.2019 passed in civi