Patna High Court - Orders
Kapilesh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 October, 2017
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31301 of 2014
======================================================
Kapilesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ramadhin Mandal R/o - Mohalla -
Mayaganj, P.S. - Barai, Distt. - Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The S.D.M. Sadar, Bhagalpur.
3. Deep Kumar Son of Late Rambaran Mandal. R/o of Mohalla -
Mayaganj, P.S. - Barari, Distt. - Bhagalpur.
4. Sarojni Devi Wife of Deep Kumar R/o of Mohalla - Mayaganj, P.S. -
Barari, Distt. - Bhagalpur.
.... .... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Pandey (App)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 04-10-2017Hear d l ear ned Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner and t he l ear ned Counsel appear i ng on behal f of O.P. No. 2.
The pet i t i oner seeks set t i ng asi de t he or der dat ed 15.5.2014 passed by t he Sessi ons Judge, Bhagal pur i n Cr . Revi si on No. 101 of 2014, wher eby he has uphel d t he or der dat ed 14.3.2014 passed by t he SDM Sadar , Bhagal pur passed i n Mi scel l aneous Case No. 59 of 2014, wher eby he has r ef used t o i ni t i at e a pr oceedi ng under Sect i on 147 of t he Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e Code.
Lear ned Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner submi t s t hat bot h si des ar e agnat es and he had easement ar y r i ght over t he l and i n quest i on, but t he Magi st r at e has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31301 of 2014 (5) dt.04-10-2017 2 r ef used t o i ni t i at e t he pr oceedi ng.
Cont r ar y t o t hat , l ear ned Counsel appear i ng on behal f of O.P. No. 2 submi t s t hat enqui r y was hel d by t he SDM and a r epor t was cal l ed f or f r om t he Pol i ce cat egor i cal l y r ej ect i ng t he st and of t he pet i t i oner , r at her i t was excl usi vel y used by t he Opposi t e par t y. Not onl y t hat even t he pet i t i oner f i l ed T.S. No. 386 of 2014 seeki ng hi s easement ar y r i ght over t he same l and and al so f i l ed i nj unct i on pet i t i on but t he same was r ef used consi der i ng t he mer i t of t he case.
Havi ng consi der ed t he r i val submi ssi ons of t he par t i es and on per usal of t he r ecor ds t he Cour t f i nds no gr ound f or i nt er f er ence wi t h t he i mpugned or der .
The pet i t i on st ands di smi ssed.
(Arun Kumar, J.) Snkumar/-
U T