Dismissed

Gopal Mazomdar And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2018Cr.Rev./496/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order setting aside a conversion of proceedings from Section 144 to Section 145 Cr.P.C. Court dismissed application, holding no error in original order as respondents possessed constructed house and dispute regarding possession did not exist.

What did the court decide?

Application for revision dismissed; order of Sessions Judge setting aside conversion upheld.

Gopal Mazomdar And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 496 of 2011

¶3

¶4

Gopal Mazomdar

¶5

Mridul Mazomdar, both are sons of Late Prafulla Mazomdar, resident of Aam Bagan, Mihijam, P.O. and P.S. Mihijam, District Jamtara … … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Sadanand Kumar, son of Late Banarsi Prasad

¶9

Kumud Devi, wife of Sadanand Kumar both (Opp. Party No. 2 and 3) are resident of Street No. 3, Qr. No. 5A, Chittaranjan, District Burdwan (West Bengal), at present residing at Mihijam, P.O. and P. S. Mihijam, District Jamtara

¶10

Pradeep Kumar Dey, son of Late Ananga Charan Dey

¶11

Roma Dey, wife of Pradeep Kumar Dey

¶12

Minoti Dey, daughter of Late Ananga Charan Dey, all (opp. No. 4 to 6) are resident of S.P. North Market, Stall No. 2, Chittaranjan, P.O. and P.S. Chittaranjan, District Burdwan (West Bengal)

¶13

… … Opp. Parties

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate

¶18

¶19

10/05.03.2018 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6.

¶20

This application is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No. 15 of 2011 by which the order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Jamtara in Cr. Misc. No. 585 of 2010 converting the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been set aside.

¶21

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the second party in a proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It has further been stated that the dispute is with respect to the possession of the property and the same was considered by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara before converting the proceeding to one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. but the learned Sessions Judge did not at all consider this aspect of the matter.

¶22

Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, has supported the impugned order dated 30.05.2011.

¶23

-2-

¶24

It appears from a perusal of the order dated 30.05.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2011 that the first party members (opposite party nos. 2 to 6) had purchased the land and house over Plot No. 1/49 of Village – Mihijam by a registered sale deed. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were in possession of the property which is a constructed house. Therefor, there was no dispute with respect to the possession over the property in question. The learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara had rightly considered the object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. and had thereafter set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara converting the proceeding to one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The status report also reveals that in view of the order dated 30.05.2011 the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was also dropped.

¶25

Be that as it may, since it is admitted position that the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 being the first party members were in possession of the constructed house, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara could not have converted the proceeding to one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. There being no error in the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Cr. Revision No. 15 of 2011, I am not inclined to entertain this application which accordingly stands dismissed.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶27

Umesh/-

Gopal Mazomdar And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Mazomdar And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Raj Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manjusree Mazumdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suraj Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Banshi Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganga Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Singh Vs Smt Renu Devi