Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash vs Nathuram on 19 July, 2017
1
MCRC No.7019/2017
Ramprakash & Anr.
v.
Nathuram & Anr.
19/07/2017
Shri Anmol Khedkar, counsel for the applicants.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has
been filed against the order dated 01/05/2017 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision
No.161/2014 affirming the order dated 24/06/2014
passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhind in Case
No.66/2011x145.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
application in short are that the applicants filed an
application/complaint under Section 145 of CrPC on
27/06/2011 and a spot inspection report was called from
the police. On 21/07/2011, after the receipt of the spot
inspection report of the police, the notices were issued to
the respondents and in view of the report given by the
police, the parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Subequently, on 16/02/2012, an application for vacating the interim order was passed and since the parties did not argue the matter on the said application, therefore, by order dated 21/02/2013, the SDM, Bhind directed that in case if the parties are so advised, then they may file written arguments on the question of vacating stay. Subsequently, by order dated 31/01/2013, the SDM, Bhind rejected the application for vacating stay and fixed the case for recording evidence of the applicant witnesses on 30/03/2013. On 30/03/2013, 10/05/2013 and 21/06/2013, the applicants did not produce any witnesses in their support. Even the applicants did not 2 MCRC No.7019/2017 enter in the witness box and, therefore, a last opportunity was given to examine the applicants' witnesses and the case was fixed for 16/08/2013. On 16/08/2013, as neither the applicants appeared nor their witnesses were produced, therefore, their right to lead evidence was closed and then the case was fixed for 11/10/2013 for recording evidence of the respondent. On 11/10/2013, 17/01/2013 and 14/03/2014, even the respondents did not produce any witness in their defence. Accordingly, the right of the respondents to lead evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments on 06/06/2014. On 06/06/2014, an opportunity was given to the parties to file the written arguments. Till 24/06/2014, as none of the parties submitted any written arguments, therefore, the SDM, Bhind was left with no other option but to dismiss the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24/06/2014, the applicants filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal. Hence, this application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that their counsel never informed that the case has been fixed for recording of evidence and their presence is required, therefore, the party should not suffer because of the mistake of their counsel. It is further submitted that as the property dispute is going on between the parties, therefore, in order to do complete justice, the matter may be remanded back to the SDM with a clear 3 MCRC No.7019/2017 stipulation that only one opportunity shall be granted to the applicants to lead evidence.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. From the order-sheets of the Court of SDM, Bhind, it is clear that the applicants or their witnesses never appeared before the Court of SDM, Bhind. Even they did not choose to file written arguments on the application for vacating stay nor they filed written final arguments. At least, four opportunities were given to the applicants to lead evidence but they did not avail the same. Thus, it is clear that the sole intention of the applicants was to somehow delay the proceedings by hook and crook.
If the argument of the counsel for the applicants that their counsel, appearing before the Court of SDM, Bhind, had never informed them about the proceedings and never instructed them to appear before the Court for leading evidence is considered, then it is clear that if the applicants are aggrieved by the conduct of the counsel, then they should have made complaint to the Bar Council which has not been done. This non-action on the part of the applicants against their counsel clearly shows that the submission made by the counsel for the applicants that it was the fault of the counsel of the applicants appearing before the Court of SDM, Bhind cannot be accepted. Speedy disposal of cases is the requirement of the present situation and the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC were initiated in the year 2011 and the final order was passed by the SDM, Bhind on 24/06/2014. The proceedings remained pending for 4 years without any 4 MCRC No.7019/2017 substantial progress. Except filing an application for stay by the applicants, no interest was shown by them in the proceedings, therefore, under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the SDM, Bhind did not commit any mistake or illegality by dismissing the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC.
At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that as the civil rights of the applicants are involved and since the respondents were not carrying out any construction work in view of the interim order passed by SDM, Bhind, therefore, now there is a possibility of breach of peace because the respondents will make every endeavor to encroach upon the land belonging to the applicants and would try to raise construction over the same.
Considered.
According to the applicants, the respondents are trying to encroach upon the land belonging to the applicants and they are trying to raise certain constructions.
Considering the grievance raised by the applicants, it is clear that the applicants have an efficacious remedy under the civil law for getting their title declared by filing a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC are in the nature of speedy remedy and if the parties keep their proceedings pending for 4 years without making any efforts to participate in the proceedings, then they cannot be allowed to misuse the provisions of Section 5 MCRC No.7019/2017 145 of CrPC.
In view of the fact that the applicants have an efficacious remedy under the civil law and the SDM, Bhind did not commit any mistake in dismissing the proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC, this Court is of the view that this application under Section 482 of CrPC is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge