Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gaya Prasad vs Ram Sohawan on 15 October, 2014

                                M.Cr.C. No.16067/2014
15.10.2014         Shri Ajit Singh, counsel for the applicant.
                   Heard on admission.
                   Vide order dated 22.7.2014 passed by SDM,
             Amarpatan in Criminal Case No.15/2011 dismissed
             the application under Section 145/146 of the Cr.P.C.
             and directed that the possession of the land be given
             to Ramsohawan from whom the possession was
             obtained. Vide order dated 19.8.2014, passed by the
             learned Additional Sessions Judge Amarpatan in
             Criminal Revision No.194/2014 filed by the applicant
             was   also     dismissed.    Being    aggrieved   with   the
             aforesaid orders, the applicant has preferred the
             present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
                   Facts of the case in short are that, the applicant

had moved an application under Sections 145/146 of the Cr.P.C. that he was in possession of the property and on 12.10.2011, when he went on the field, he found that the respondents were cultivating the field and they prohibited the applicant to cultivate the land therefore, he has filed an application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. During pendency of that application, the land was provided to one receiver after its attachment. After the entire hearing, the concerned SDM dismissed the application under Sections 145/146 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and possession of the land was restored to the person from whom possession was taken.

After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that both the Courts below found that the land was in name of the applicant but at the time of his application, he was not in possession. Under such circumstances, it was for him to knock the door of the Civil Court to get the possession on the basis of ownership. He was not entitled to get the possession under Sections 145/146 of the Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. There is no reason by which the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked in favour of applicant.

Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Gaya Prasad is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj