Revision against an order fixing a matter for report under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C. in a dispute over land title. Court held order infructuous under Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. due to two-month bar.
CRR and connected applications disposed being infructuous; interim orders vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 615 of 2020
Sri Avijit Dey
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Ganguly. For the State : Ms. Rita Dutta. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None. Heard on : 19.04.2023 Judgment on : 11.05.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
3
4
the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have assailed the same in a proceeding under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is not permissible in law as well as in fact and as such, the whole proceedings initiated by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be quashed and/or set aside.
9. Ms. Rita Dutta, learned counsel for the State is present.
“Perused the application u/s 144(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Sunanda Hazra this day. Let it be registered. Heard the Ld. filing lawyer. Considered. Call for a report from the I/C Dankuni P.S. as to the subject matter of the application fixing 27.03.2020 for submitting report. Parties to maintain peace.
I/C Dankuni P.O. is directed to restrain the OP as prayed for.”
“ 144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.-
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully
5
employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor- in- office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub- section (5) or subsection (6) is received, the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.”
6
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate has power to decide disputes regarding title and interest over land under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Avijit Dey
State of West Bengal
Sunanda Hazra
Opposite Party No. 2
Opposite Party No. 3
Shampa Dutt (Paul)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
