Patna High Court - Orders
Ramayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 April, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.374 of 2011
======================================================
Ramayan Singh, son of Ram Sakal Singh, resident of Village- Sarna, P.S.-
Shahpur, District- Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Dinesh Singh, son of late Seheo Shankar Singh.
3. Vikrama Singh, son of Late Sheo Shankar Singh.
4. Dharmendra Singh, S/o Vikrama Singh.
5. Jai Ram Singh, S/o Sheodhar Singh.
All are residents of Village- Sarna, P.S. - Shahpur, District-
Bhojpur.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Dhanendra Choubey
Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
6 22-04-2014Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhanendra Choubey for the opposite party nos.2 to 5.
This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur, district Bhojpur, whereby he has been pleased to drop the proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code) bearing Case No.12 of 2010.
The facts of the case briefly stated is that a non-FIR Patna High Court CR. REV. No.374 of 2011 (6) dt.22-04-2014 2 bearing No.113 of 2010 had been registered at the instance of the petitioner charging the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 herein with obstructing a common passage which he was using since last 15-16 years and which had been permitted by the opposite party nos.2 to 5 in exchange of some plot stated to have been given by the petitioner to the opposite parties for the passage. The matter was enquired into by the Sub-Inspector and tension reported and whereafter a formal application was filed by the petitioner under section 147 of the Code placed at Annexure-2 stating the same.
Mr. Verma has also referred to a compromise stated to have been entered into between the parties permitting such usage placed at Annexure-3. He thus submits that the obstruction raised by the opposite party nos.2 to 5 by blocking the passage is in violation of the compromise and deprives him of the passage.
The opposite party nos.2 to 5 appeared and contested the matter before the Magistrate and while questioning the compromise it was stated that the first party, i.e. the petitioner herein had no right over the passage. A report was called for from the Circle Officer, Shahpur who again while discussing the rival contentions, has mentioned that the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.374 of 2011 (6) dt.22-04-2014 3 obstruction so raised by the opposite party nos.2 to 5 over the plots in question did not restrict the movement of the first party inasmuch as there is an alternative general passage available for his usage. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate taking into consideration the fact that the passage claimed by the first party admittedly passed through the private land of the second party and that the petitioner had an alternative passage was pleased to reject the application.
This Court taking into consideration the reasons assigned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to reject the prayer as also taking into consideration that the Circle Officer has reported that an alternative passage is available, does not feel inclined to interfere with the order impugned and this criminal revision application is accordingly dismissed.
Let the lower court records received be returned to the court concerned forthwith.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-