Dismissed

Jagpat Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Sept 2012CR. MISC./16960/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the high court's dismissal of a quashing petition regarding initiation of proceedings under Sections 144/145 Cr.P.C. during a pending civil appeal. The court held that such criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process when a civil suit or appeal is pending and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the quashing order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; parties directed not to harm standing trees during the pendency of the appeal.

Jagpat Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16960 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== 1. Jagpat Singh son of late Ramdeo Singh, resident of village-Brahimpur, P.S.-Masharak, District-Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Nr. Parbat, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶3

3 03-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶4

2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Cr. Rev. No. 410 of 2008 by which the court below has allowed the revision petition and with certain modification, quashed the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Marhawrrah in Case No. 846 of 2008 whereby he had converted the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. in proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C.

¶5

3. From the averment made in this petition it appears that with regard to the same piece of land, there was a partition suit bearing No. 110/1978 between the petitioner and his co-

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16960 of 2011 (3) dt.03-09-2012

¶7

2 / 4

¶8

sharers in which the second party filed intervention application and was made party. The Partition Suit was decided vide judgment and decree dated 6.1.1983 against the petitioner and the First Appeal No. 119 of 1983 is pending before this Court. During the pendency of this First Appeal, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. was initiated and later on, the same was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The matter came before the Revisional Court who has interfered with the order of conversion on the ground that dispute pertaining to present 145 proceeding has already been decided in a Civil Suit and the matter is pending before this Court in First Appeal, there was no justification for initiation and continuation of this proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶9

4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the S.D.M. court had rightly initiated the proceeding under Section of 144 and converted 145 Cr. P.C. as during the pendency of this First Appeal, emergent situation arose relating to the same subjectmatter.

¶10

5. In view of the emergent situation, proceeding of Section 144 Cr. P.C. and conversion of proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be said to be illegal proceeding and the

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16960 of 2011 (3) dt.03-09-2012

¶12

3 / 4

¶13

Revisional Court has wrongly interfered with continuation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C.

¶14

6. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied on judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1198 (Jagdish Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat & others) where Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samer Puri Mahant Vs. State of A.P. 1985 SC 472 is not in conflict with in Mohindar Singh 1977 Cr.L.J. 1029. Hence interference by the Sessions Court is completely illegal and not sustainable in law.

¶15

7. Counsel for the State has submitted that this Court has repeatedly held, where the Civil Suit is pending or have been decided by the Civil Court or by the Revenue Court, S.D.M. may refuse to initiate proceeding under section 144 and 145 as it will be an abuse of the process of the Court to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. or proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. with regard to the same land.

¶16

8. Having considered that rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Court as has been held by this Court in different cases, if Civil Suit is pending or any judgment and decree has been passed by the Civil Court or by the Revenue

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16960 of 2011 (3) dt.03-09-2012

¶18

4 / 4

¶19

Court, the proceeding under section 144 Cr. P.C. or under section 145 Cr. P.C. will be an abuse of process of Court..

¶20

9. In this view of the matter, after the judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit, proceeding of Section 145 Cr. P.C. is an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is expected that during the pendency of the appeal, neither of the party will harm the standing trees on the disputed

¶21

land.

¶22

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶23

Mahesh/-

Jagpat Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagpat Singh v. the State of Bihar 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

Moolchand Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Jalil Baitha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Harendra Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Kamendra Choudhary and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Ratan Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Jaiprakash Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.