Dismissed

Prithwi Chand Tatma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Apr 2013CR. MISC./35665/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of an order confirming the rejection of a request to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding land possession. The court dismissed the petition, noting that possession had already been decided under the B.T. Act and there was no reported breach of peace to justify Magisterial jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to file a civil suit for claim over the land.

Prithwi Chand Tatma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35665 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Prithwi Chand Tatma, S/o Late Biranchi Tatma, Resident of Village - Hriday Nagar (Kajhi), P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ashok Yadav 3. Baba Yadav 4. Rama Yadav 5. Raja Yadav, All sons of Late Basudeo Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Hriday Nagar (Kajhi), P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER 4 24-04-2013 Heard. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No. 113 of 2004 by which the order dated 13.03.2004 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner to initiate a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been confirmed.

¶4

The learned S.D.M., Banmankhi, Purnea by order dated 13.03.2004 has observed that the possession has earlier been decided in favour of the opposite parties in a proceeding under Section 48E of the B.T. Act and the revisional court has also considered the order and found the possession of the opposite parties over the lands in question and the contention of the

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35665 of 2012 (4) dt.24-04-2013

¶6

¶7

petitioner that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is another matter and is not tenable as the possession has been decided under the B. T. Act.

¶8

However, apart from the merit of the case, it is apparent that petition was filed for initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in 2004 and the original order has been passed on 13.03.2004 i.e. before nine years. There is no report of any untoward incidence due to breach of peace and any breach of peace exists or not whereas the Magistrate has jurisdiction to decide the possession if there is apprehension of breach of peace. Hence, in absence of any report about breach of peace, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶9

The petitioner if so desire may file suit for his claim over the land in question.

¶10

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶11

Kundan/-

Prithwi Chand Tatma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithwi Chand Tatma 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

Shailesh Sharma Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Birendra Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Yaruddin Vs The State Of Bihar

Amarjeet Pandey @ Amarjeet Kr. Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar

Seeta Fatma @ Sita Fatima Mansoori @ Smt. Sitabai @ Fatima Mansoori Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary Special Vigilance and Anr.