Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rayaj Ahamad @ Reyaj Ahmed vs Md. Selim @ Md. Salim on 17 July, 2013
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No. 861 of 2013 With CRAN No.1005 of 2013 Rayaj Ahamad @ Reyaj Ahmed
-vs-
Md. Selim @ Md. Salim
For the petitioner : Mr. Arindam Jana,
Ms. Saheli Mukhopadhyay
For the O.P. Mr. Md. Mamood
Heard on:- 02-07-2013.
Judgement on: 17-07-2013.
The subject matter of challenge in this criminal revisional application is an order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order so passed is quoted below:-
"Heard the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner. I/C Chinsurah is directed to enquire and report, issue notice upon O.P. Also see that if there is any dilapidate house over the suit property, the legal activity over the dilapidated house as regards repairing be not disturbed illegally. Also maintain peace in the locality." 2
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended the dispute is absolutely civil in nature, therefore, the Executive Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contended that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration that opposite party has no right, title and interest in the suit property and the said suit is pending.
Now, going through the impugned order I find the learned Magistrate while directing the Inspector-in-Charge, Chinsurah Police Station to enquire and report and issuance of notice against the opposite party, simultaneously directed to maintain peace in the locality and if any repairing work is done in respect of the dilapidated house in question under proper legal sanction, the same shall not be interferred with. In my opinion, such order cannot be said to be restraint order passed against the petitioner and the police have been directed to perform its statutory duty thereby it could not be said the Learned Magistrate have acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner shall have the right to approach the court concerned upon receipt of the notice to defend his case. Next, even assuming the order impugned is an restraint order, the same being passed on February 11, 2013, by efflux of time has by now lost it's force. 3
This criminal revisional application has no merit and the same stands dismissed.
In view of above, the application for vacating of the interim order being CRAN No. 1005 of 2013 also stands disposed.
Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Xerox certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible, after compliance of all formalities.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)