Disposed

Bikram Luhura v. Gajendra Rohidas

Orissa HC10 Aug 2016CRLREV/880/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the dropping of Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings due to a pending civil partition suit. The court refused interference based on the lapse of 13 years but granted liberty to approach an appropriate forum if breach of peace persists.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move the appropriate forum if breach of peace persists.

Bikram Luhura Vs Gajendra Rohidas — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

CRLREV No.880 of 2003
10.8.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opp.party.
 This is an application under section 401 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner challengin
g the order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Jharsuguda in C.M.C. No
. 485 of 2002. The learned Executive Magistrate in the impugned order has held as follows:
That one Surendra Luhura and others have filed a suit (C.S. No. 90 of 2003) against both the p
arties for partition. When both the parties were made as defendants in the suit and 107 Cr.P.C
. proceeding has been started against both the parties to avoid apprehension of breach of peac
e, this proceeding is liable to be dropped.

¶2

 Accordingly, the proceeding was dropped by the learned Executive Magistrate.
 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dropping of the proceeding is
illegal and law is well settled that even if civil proceeding is pending between the parties,
there is no bar to continue proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. Since it is a case of the
year 2002 and

¶3

the impugned order is passed in the year 2003 and in the meantime, more than 13 years have alr
eady passed, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Executive Magi
strate, Jharsuguda.

¶4

 However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum in case the b
reach of peach still prevails and no interim arrangement has been made in the civil suit.
 Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of.

¶5

¶6

Bikram Luhura v. Gajendra Rohidas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Luhura v. Gajendra Rohidas

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

State Vs Ananda

Kothari Pradhan Vs State

Pritimaya Giri Vs Satish K.Agarwalla

Dandapani Jena Vs Dfo,Ganjam

sudhansu sekhar giri Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Hotel Sagara Kanya Vs Principal Sec.FandE Dept.