Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Kartik Sah Aged 56 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.99 of 2020
------
1. Shyam Kartik Sah aged 56 years, son of Late Baleshwar Sah.
2. Paltu Sah @ Paltu Kr. Gupta aged about 26 years, son of Shyam Kartik Sah.
3. Pancham Sah aged about 70 years, son of Late Dashrath Sah.
All resident of Village + P.O. - Chandih, P.S.- Kunda, District-
Deoghar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Girja Devi @ Girja Debya wife of Late Khushru Sah, resident of Village + P.O. - Chandih, P.S.- Kunda, District- Deoghar.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
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 the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in connection with Cr. Revision No.253 of 2015 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar has dismissed the criminal revision filed against the order dated 12.09.2015 in connection with Cr. Misc. Case No.627 of 2015 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. 1 Cr. M.P. No.99 of 2020
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners were the second party of Cr. Misc. Case No.627 of 2015. On 12.09.2015, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar dropped the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. by confirming the possession of the first party over the plot No.661 and 662 and also observed that the aggrieved party may approach the appropriate court. The petitioners filed the Cr. Revision No.253 of 2015 challenging the said order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar. The revisional court has observed that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar has not converted the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. into the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar has merely stated that continuous possession of first party namely Girja Devi of two decimals of land. Hence, it did not find any illegality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar may by a written order direct any person to abstain from a certain act or pass certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management and if Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility or a riot or an affray but the Magistrate cannot declare possession of the party in exercise of power under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that otherwise also an order passed under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. shall remain in force for not more than two months from the date of making thereof. It is also submitted that though the order dated 12.09.2015 has lost its force but the opposite party No.2 is taking advantage of the observation regarding his 2 Cr. M.P. No.99 of 2020 possession made in the said proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in connection with Cr. Revision No.253 of 2015, be modified accordingly.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand fairly submits that the Magistrate while exercising the power under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. cannot declare the possession of the parties to the proceedings but it is submitted that the Sub-divisional Magistrate in this case, has only observed that the first party to the said Cr. Misc. No.627 of 2015 is in continuous possession of the disputed property and it is a passing remark only. Hence, it is submitted by them that no illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Deoghar in passing the impugned order in Cr. Revision No.253 of 2015. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, 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 needless to mention here that the Magistrate exercising power under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. is not authorized to make any declaration regarding the possession of the party. It is also the mandate of law that the order passed under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. shall not remain in force for more than two months and undisputedly more than two months has been elapsed since passing of the order on 12.09.2015 by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Cr. Misc. Case No.627 of 2015. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of with the observation that neither of the parties can take advantage of the observation made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Cr. Misc. 3 Cr. M.P. No.99 of 2020
Case No.627 of 2015 regarding possession of the first party in respect of plot Nos.661 and 662 in any court of law.
7. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
8. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 10.09.2020 stands vacated.
9. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th of August, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 4 Cr. M.P. No.99 of 2020