The Patna High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a revisional order. The Court held that the application was barred as a second revision under Section 397 CrPC and found no merit.
Application is dismissed as devoid of merit and barred as a second revision.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22754 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)
===========================================================
Both are sons of Late Asharfi Sah, resident of village- Sangrampur, Tola - Ramna, P.S.- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-08-2017
Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the CrPC) has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-XIII, Motihari in Cr. Revision No.214 of 2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision application preferred against the order dated 22.01.2014 passed in Case No.794 of 2013 under Section 133 of the CrPC by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Areraj.
3. By the aforesaid order dated 22.01.2014, the learned Sub
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22754 of 2017 dt.04-08-2017
2/3
Divisional Magistrate, Areraj directed the Circle Officer, Sangrampur and the Officer Incharge, Sangrampur to remove the public nuisance caused over Gair Mazrua land situated in village- Sangrampur bearng Khata No.1553, Khesra No.7698 and 7964.
4. It would be manifest from the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Areraj that on a complaint made by the opposite party no.2, an enquiry was handed over to the Circle Officer, Sangrampur, who submitted his report vide letter no.457 dated 16.12.2013 wherein it was mentioned that the land in question was Gair Mazrua land being used by the people at large as public way, but the petitioner had made encroachment over it and had constructed a thatched hut as a result of which the public way had become too narrow causing a lot of inconvenience to the masses. Having received the report of the Circle Officer, Sangrampur and taking into cognizance of the order passed by this Court in matter of Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No.2290 of 1990), the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrampur directed for removal of the public nuisance. The said order was challenged in revision by the petitioner, but the revisional court also after hearing the parties did not find any merit in the revision application. It was argued before the revisional court that the petitioners had not received notice of the proceeding under Section 133 of the CrPC before the court of Sub Divisional
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22754 of 2017 dt.04-08-2017
3/3
Magistrate. However, on examination of the record, the revisional court gave a finding that the said plea taken by the petitioner was palpably false. The revisional court also held that record speaks that the petitioners not only received the notice but they also filed their Vakalatnama and contested the matter. The revisional court also expressed its satisfaction that there were sufficient materials to support the claim that the land over which nuisance was created was a public land. It was mentioned as Gair Mazrua Rasta in the cadastral survey.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, I see no material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the revisinal court. Even otherwise, though this application has been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, the same is in the nature of second revision, which is barred under Sub Section (3) of Section 397 of the CrPC.
6. Accordingly. The application, being devoid of any merit,
is dismissed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Md.S./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | N/A |
| UploadingDate | 08.08.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
08.08.2017 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 482 CrPC filed as a second revision against a revisional order dismissing a Section 133 CrPC order is maintainable.
Whether there is any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the revisional court dismissing the contempt order against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of BiharReferred¶24
Arun Kumar Mukherjee vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No.2290 of 1990)
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagnnath Prasad @ Jagnnath Sah and Laxman Prasad @ Laxman Sah
The State of Bihar
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
