Jharkhand High Court
Ravikant Bhadani Aged About 60 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:22207 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.4109 of 2018
------
1. Ravikant Bhadani aged about 60 years son of Late Madhusudan Prasad Bhadani
2. Harsh Bhadani aged about 31 years son of Sashikant Bhadani Both resident of Bishrambag Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Abhishek Bhadani son of Krishna Mohan Bhadani.
3. Gautam Bhadani son of Late Srikant Bhadani.
4. Pankaj Bhadani son of Late Janardan Prasad Bhadani.
5. Gaurav Prasad Bhadani son of Late Jagat Prasad Bhadani.
6. Amit Bhadani son of Late Janardan Prasad Bhadani.
7. Sachin Bhadani son of Late Santosh Kumar Bhadani.
All 2 to 7 resident of Bishrambagh Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma.
8. Gopal Prasad Bhadani son of Deo Narayan Bhadani resident of Darshan Bhawan, Bhadani Road, Jhumri Telaiya, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate
: Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.4109 of 2018
( 2025:JHHC:22207 )
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Criminal Revision No.57 of 2018.
3. The brief fact of the case is that Criminal Revision No.57 of 2018 was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the SDM, Koderma in Case No.26 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned court below converted the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. into Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma to whom apparently the Criminal Revision No.57 of 2018 was transferred by the Sessions Judge, Koderma, in internal page-5 running page-40 of the said judgement dated 11.10.2018 has mentioned that admittedly the order impugned before it i.e. the order of SDM, Koderma was passed without any police report or any other report regarding breach of peace over the disputed land with regard to actual possession of the disputed land, hence he quashed and set aside the order passed by the SDM, Koderma.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this observation is an error apparent on the face of the record as there is police report, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-3 at page-30 and 31 of the brief dated 14.04.2018 basing upon which the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and later on the same was converted to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the 2 Cr. M.P. No.4109 of 2018 ( 2025:JHHC:22207 ) learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma is not sustainable in law, therefore, the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the sine qua non for initiating the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.; either a fresh proceeding or a proceeding by way of conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. to 145 Cr.P.C. is that there must exist a dispute likely to cause breach of peace. It is next submitted that true it is that there is a police report dated 14.04.2018 where it has been mentioned that there is likelihood of breach of peace basing upon which the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated. But there is no police report or any other material in the record to suggest that the SDM, Koderma to be satisfied that there existed a dispute likely to cause breach of peace and in the absence of same at the time of conversion of the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.. Thus it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in setting aside the order passed by the SDM, Koderma, impugned before it and as the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma has additionally mentioned that without recording reason and ground of satisfaction, as is required to initiate a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., as the SDM, Koderma has without scrupulously following the mandate of section 145 of Cr.P.C. has allowed the initiation of proceeding under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. by way of conversion of the earlier proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., hence, it is submitted that 3 Cr. M.P. No.4109 of 2018 ( 2025:JHHC:22207 ) no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma. Therefore, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhimka and Others vs. Charan Singh reported in AIR 1959 SC 1960 that the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is initiated to provide speedy remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of dispute relating to immovable properties. The plain reading of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.--(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (Emphasis supplied) makes it abundantly clear that the sine qua non for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is the satisfaction of Executive Magistrate concerned either from the report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists concerning any land, water or boundaries thereof within his local jurisdiction. This condition precedent requirement of section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. is applicable both, to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. as well as for initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. by way of conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 4 Cr. M.P. No.4109 of 2018
( 2025:JHHC:22207 )
7. Now coming to the facts of the case, true it is, that there is a police report dated 14.04.2018 basing upon which the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and the Section 144 of Cr.P.C. continued for more than a month. There is no fresh report available in the record either of the police showing that there exists any breach of peace nor the Executive Magistrate has recorded its satisfaction otherwise than on police report that there exist any breach of peace concerning any land, water or boundaries thereof within his local jurisdiction, on the date of converting the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. to the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.. In the absence of the same, the act of the SDM, Koderma in initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. by way of conversion of the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.; as has rightly been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma, is not in accordance with law, hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the said order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in Criminal Revision No.57 of 2018 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma has dismissed the Criminal Revision No.57 of 2018, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 05th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj 5 Cr. M.P. No.4109 of 2018