Jagnarayan Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Petitioners No. 1 to 12 are R/o Village- Sugari, P.O. & P.S. Chhattarpur, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand and Petitioners No. 13 to 24 are R/o Village Patkhahi P.O. & P.S. Chhattarpur, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand.

¶29

… Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State of Jharkhand

¶32

¶33

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶34

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶35

Bipat Mochi, S/o Late Sardar Chamar,

¶36

Moti Ram, S/o Late Munarik Mochi,

¶37

Nanhu Ram, S/o Late Munarik Mochi,

¶38

Charitar Mochi, S/o Late Sundar Mochi,

¶39

Respondent No. 2 to 5 are R/o Village- Sugari, P.O. & P.S. Chhattarpur, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand.

¶40

… Opposite Parties

¶41

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nishad Khan, Advocate Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate Ms. Juhi Kumari, Advocate For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. For the OP No.2 to 5 : Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T

¶42

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶43

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶44

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj upheld the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur, whereby and where under the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur has declared possession of the opposite party Nos.2 to 5, in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Miscellaneous Case

¶45

¶46

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶47

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶48

No.145 of 1991 and also to quash the order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur in the aforesaid case.

¶49

The brief fact of the case is that vide order dated 03.02.1998 in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur passed the Final Order in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declaring the possession of the second party to the said proceeding, who are the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.02.1998 in the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 03.02.1998, the first party to the said proceeding, filed Criminal Revision No.21 of 1998 and the same was heard and disposed of by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj vide order dated 29.07.2006. The learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj considered that in the order impugned before it, there is no reference as to the land, of which the village, was in consideration before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur. The learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj also considered that though the SubDivisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur asked the first party to call for the return filed by the landlord and letters were also issued in this respect, the SubDivisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur committed an error by holding that the first party has not brought the concerned record even after three months, without giving any opportunity to the first party to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the said return filed by the landlord and by thus observing, quashed and set aside the said order dated 03.02.1998 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991 and remanded the matter back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order. After the said remand, the Sub-

¶50

¶51

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶52

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶53

Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur passed the fresh order dated 29.09.2008 in the said Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991 and declared the possession of the first party of the said proceeding over the place of occurrence land. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.09.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991, the second party to the said proceeding filed Criminal Revision No.79 of 2008 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj. The learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj vide order dated 12.05.2010 in Criminal Revision No.79 of 2008, considered that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has overlooked the provision of Section 65 and Section 66 of the Evidence Act and failed to comply with the direction of the Revisional Court passed in its order dated 29.07.2006 in Criminal Revision No.21 of 1998 and set aside the order impugned before it i.e. the order dated 29.09.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991 and again remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur with a direction to comply with all the requirements of law as enshrined in Section 65 and Section 66 of the Evidence Act and then to decide the proceeding fresh.

¶54

After being thus remanded for the second time, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur passed a fresh order again on 17.03.2015 considering the materials available in the record and held that the first party has been in possession of the disputed land two months prior to institution of the said proceeding.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.03.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991, the second party filed Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj and the same was heard and disposed of

¶56

¶57

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶58

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶59

on 17.05.2017. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj did not find fault with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur, in admitting the documents filed by the first party in the record and did not find any incorrectness, illegality in the finding arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur, while deciding the matter in Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991, which has been wrongly mentioned in para-9 of the impugned judgment as Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1951 and dismissed the criminal revision.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though it was specifically agitated before the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur failed to consider that the disputed land has been in actual and peaceful possession of the revision petitioners, over which the first party to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no concern and the first party to the said proceeding was never in possession, at least two months prior to the institution of the case and the members of the second party have documents which they have proved, which has been marked Ext.-G to Ext.-I to show that they have been in possession over the disputed land, at least two months prior to the institution of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in not considering the said submission of the petitioners.

¶61

Relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Agnu Ram Mahli Vs. Bhola Marijhi & Others reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Jhar 339 , learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in para-5 of the said judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

¶62

¶63

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶64

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶65

reiterated the settled principle of law that in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is concerned only with the question of actual physical possession over the land in question and he cannot give possession to a party on a finding that he has a better title over the land.

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2023 Supreme (Pat) 600 and submits that in para-5 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Patna High Court also reiterated the settled principle of law that question of possession has to be decided under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no need for discussion of title or documents relating to the title and the question of possession has to be decided only. It is next submitted that Ext.-G is the order sheet of the case instituted by the ancestor of the first party, for eviction of the ancestors of the members of the second party from over the disputed land vide L.R. Case No.01 of 1976-77 of the court of Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar at Daltonganj and thereby, the ancestor of the members of the first party admitted that the ancestor of the second party were in possession of the disputed land; but as the same was dismissed, by such document it is established that the members of the second party have been in possession of the disputed land but which vital documents regarding possession of the second party was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is then submitted that Ext.-I is the registered sale deed which was executed in favour of the ancestors of the second party and Zamindari Rent Receipts in favour of the vendors of the ancestor of the members of the second party namely Ishwari Lal, where the

¶67

¶68

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶69

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶70

other vital documents regarding the possession of the members of the second party over the disputed land, which were not considered by the revisional Court in the impugned order; though in the order dated 03.02.1998 passed in the said Miscellaneous Case No.145 of 1991, the SubDivisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur considered all the documents marked Exhibit on behalf of the members of the second party from Ext.-A to Ext.-I but the failure on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur while passing the order dated 17.03.2015 of those documents and the failure on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj to consider the said exhibits of the members of the second party, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur while passing the said order dated 17.03.2015, has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which the learned revisional court failed to take note of. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶71

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 5 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 5 relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajpati Vs. Bachan & Another reported in (1980) 4 SCC 116 and submits that in para-6 of which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is to be satisfied regarding the existence of a breach of the peace and once he records his satisfaction in the preliminary order, the High Court in revision cannot go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the materials on the basis of which the satisfaction of the Magistrate is based.

¶72

¶73

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶74

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶75

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 5 next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jhummamal @ Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 452 and submits that in para-8 of which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that an order made under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the Civil Court and the unsuccessful party, therefore, must get relief only in the Civil Court concerned. Hence, it is submitted that the remedy for the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court.

¶76

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 5 further relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdeo Sahu Vs. Sawana Bhogta @ Pawana Bhogta & Others reported in 2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 841 and submits that in that case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court approbated the proposition of law that the Magistrate exercising the power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is entitled to come to the conclusion that one party is in physical possession of the disputed land on the basis of the oral testimony of the witnesses examined. It is further submitted that in this case, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur arrived at the conclusion regarding possession of the first party over the disputed land on the basis of the oral evidence adduced by the first party. Hence, no fault can be found with the Magistrate and the said order of the Magistrate having been confirmed by the learned Revisional Court,so, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the

¶77

¶78

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶79

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶80

Revisional Court also. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶81

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate while dealing with the proceeding under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The words “Receipts of said evidence as may be produced by them” appearing in Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, obviously means both oral and documentary evidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that true, it is that the Magistrate while exercising the power under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not to delve into the title of the parties but certainly that does not preclude the Magistrate from looking into the documents of possession of the parties like rent receipt or other documents. 13. Perusal of the record reveals that in the initial order dated 03.02.1998, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur considered, both the oral as well as documentary evidence available in the records and after considering such evidence available in the records, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur came to the conclusion regarding possession of the members of the second party over the disputed land. In the first criminal revision i.e. the order dated 29.07.2006 in Criminal Revision No.21 of 1998, the remand was on a limited purpose in respect of particular point of not considering the documents of the first party which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur to be called for but without waiting for the same the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhattarpur found fault with the first party for not producing those documents. But certainly, that did not mandate the

¶82

¶83

Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2017

¶84

[2025:JHHC:29142]

¶85

Sub-Divisional Magistrate not to consider all such evidences that were put forth by the first party, which were considered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in its order dated 03.02.1998. It appears that in subsequent order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Courts as already indicated above, both the subsequent Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Courts lost sight of the fact that they are required to consider all such evidences which is brought by the party on record and thus have committed a grave mistake by not considering the documentary evidence particularly of the members of the second party, some of which also relates to the possession of the second party in respect of the disputed land.

¶86

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 17.05.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 having been passed without considering the submission of the petitioners herein, who were the petitioners before the Revisional Court also that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not considered the documentary evidence, some of which relates to the possession also which have been exhibited as Ext.-A to Ext.-G ,including some rent receipts. There in the considered opinion of this court the impugned judgement is not sustainable in law. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside.

¶87

Accordingly, the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2015 is quashed and set aside.

¶88