Challenge to order allowing appeal in Section 145 Cr.P.C. case. Court held criminal revision infructuous as possession declared by civil court matter subjudice in second appeal.
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 OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1042 of 2003
... … Petitioners
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Amicus Curiae ---------
17/17.03.2023.
Heard the parties.
The petitioners have challenged the legality, correctness and proprietary of order dated 06.08.2003, passed by Sri Pradip Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Criminal Appeal No.101/2001, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih allowed the appeal of opposite party No.2 filed against the order dated 01.10.2001 passed by Sri. S. Tiwary, learned Executive Magistrate, Giridih in Misc. Case No.1284/1986, corresponding to T.R. No.278/1999 in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereby and wherein the learned Executive Magistrate, Giridih had declared the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land.
Ms. Khushboo Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 submitted that this application has become infructuous as the opposite party No.2 had filed a Title Suit before competent Civil Court at Giridih being Title Suit No.48/1983, in which the present land in question was subject matter of that suit. It was further submitted that the title suit was decreed against opposite party No.2 by the Sub-Judge IV, Giridih, who had declared the possession of the petitioners on the disputed land. Opposite Party No. 2 had preferred an appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012, which was dismissed by the appellate court. Opposite Party No. 2 has preferred Second Appeal, being S.A. No.461/2018, which is pending before this Court.
As the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land has already been declared by a competent civil court and affirmed by the
-2-
appellate court and the matter is pending before this court vide S.A. No.461/2018, this criminal revision application has become infructuous.
Considering the aforesaid fact, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for Ms. Khushboo Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court in adjudicating this case.
The Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Ms. Khushboo Kumari Rs.5,000/- as remuneration for the service rendered by her as Amicus Curiae.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision is maintainable when the matter is subjudice in a second appeal before the High Court.
Md. Islam
Md. Rasheed
Md. Manzoor
Raisha Khatoon
The State of Jharkhand
Md. Sarfuddin
Ambuj Nath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
