Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (3.09 seconds)Section 146 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 13 December, 2012
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 3 SCC 366 (Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others), while dealing with the order of attachment passed by the Revenue authority, is of the categorical view that "the object of Section 145 Cr.P.C is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession and not for evicting any person from possession and the scope of enquiry under Section 145 is in respect of actual possession without reference to the merits or claim of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute". It is further laid down in para 10 that the Magistrate has to, under section 146, satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment and the case of emergency as contemplated under Section 146 Cr.P.C has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of a breach of peace and the Magistrate before passing an order under section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be material on record before the Magistrate, when the submission of the parties is filed, documents produced or evidence adduced. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same judgment, having regard to the prior pendency of the civil suit, observed that it is for the civil court to decide as to who was in possession on the date of the filing of the suit, specially, when the civil court is seized of the matter.
M.Krishnamoorthy vs ) P.M.Neelamegham on 9 April, 2003
10.The impugned order is also challenged on yet another ground i.e. for want of preliminary order under Sub section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive Magistrate has not passed any preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C thereby satisfying himself regarding existence of dispute, that is likely to cause breach of peace in his jurisdiction. The police report was followed by the issuance of summons to both the parties, the copy of which is enclosed at page 84 of the typed set and the same was followed by enquiry, outcome of which is the final order. Neither the preliminary order nor the final order would disclose any specific finding regarding existence of such state of affairs which is likely to lead to law and order problem. The Division Bench and the learned brother judges of our High court in the following decisions, held that the final order is vitiated for non passing of any preliminary order under Sub Section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C: (i)2003 Crl.LJ 3820 (M.Krishnamoorthy v. P.M.Neelamegham and others) (DB) (ii) (2007) 1 MLJ 928 (Thamaraiammal and another v. Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and another and (iii)(2008) 2 MLJ 114 (Lalitha Narayan and another v. Latha Barathan and others).
Mrs. Thamaraiammal And Anr. vs The Executive Magistrate-Cum-Revenue ... on 10 January, 2007
10.The impugned order is also challenged on yet another ground i.e. for want of preliminary order under Sub section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive Magistrate has not passed any preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C thereby satisfying himself regarding existence of dispute, that is likely to cause breach of peace in his jurisdiction. The police report was followed by the issuance of summons to both the parties, the copy of which is enclosed at page 84 of the typed set and the same was followed by enquiry, outcome of which is the final order. Neither the preliminary order nor the final order would disclose any specific finding regarding existence of such state of affairs which is likely to lead to law and order problem. The Division Bench and the learned brother judges of our High court in the following decisions, held that the final order is vitiated for non passing of any preliminary order under Sub Section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C: (i)2003 Crl.LJ 3820 (M.Krishnamoorthy v. P.M.Neelamegham and others) (DB) (ii) (2007) 1 MLJ 928 (Thamaraiammal and another v. Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and another and (iii)(2008) 2 MLJ 114 (Lalitha Narayan and another v. Latha Barathan and others).
Mrs.Lalitha Narayan vs Latha Barathan on 13 March, 2008
10.The impugned order is also challenged on yet another ground i.e. for want of preliminary order under Sub section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Executive Magistrate has not passed any preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C thereby satisfying himself regarding existence of dispute, that is likely to cause breach of peace in his jurisdiction. The police report was followed by the issuance of summons to both the parties, the copy of which is enclosed at page 84 of the typed set and the same was followed by enquiry, outcome of which is the final order. Neither the preliminary order nor the final order would disclose any specific finding regarding existence of such state of affairs which is likely to lead to law and order problem. The Division Bench and the learned brother judges of our High court in the following decisions, held that the final order is vitiated for non passing of any preliminary order under Sub Section (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C: (i)2003 Crl.LJ 3820 (M.Krishnamoorthy v. P.M.Neelamegham and others) (DB) (ii) (2007) 1 MLJ 928 (Thamaraiammal and another v. Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and another and (iii)(2008) 2 MLJ 114 (Lalitha Narayan and another v. Latha Barathan and others).
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ponnammal And Anr. vs State, Rep. By Revenue Inspector And ... on 7 October, 2003
The learned brother Judge N.Dhinakar, J. in the decision reported in 2003 (4) CTC 232 (Ponnammal and another v. State) has set aside the preliminary order as not in compliance of Section 145(1) Cr.P.C for want of grounds of his satisfaction and breach of peace likely to occur.
1