Skip to content


Kongkham Chandra Mani Singh Vs. Kongkham Sangai Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantKongkham Chandra Mani Singh
RespondentKongkham Sangai Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the respondents for drawing up proceedings under section 107, cr.p.c. on the allegation that the disputed land was delivered to him by the court of first subordinate judge on 18-8-1965 in execution case no. 3 of 1959 on its file, that ever since the date of the delivery the petitioner and his men had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the disputed land and that when the harvesting of the standing crops was begun, the respondents threatened the petitioner and his men with dangerous weapons and caused apprehension of breach of the peace.3. the police submitted a report before the s.d.m., bishenpur under section 107, cr.p.c. against the respondents. the learned s.d.m. passed an order on 1.11.1965 directing his office to issue summonses to the parties to ascertain if a.....
Judgment:

C. Jagannadhacharyulu, J.C.

1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Manipur, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Revision Case No. 91 of 1965 on his file to set aside the order of the S.D.M., Bishenpur in N.F.I.R. Case No. 22 of 1965 on the file of the S.D.M. dropping the proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. and directing the return of seized paddy etc. to the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Police against the respondents for drawing up proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. on the allegation that the disputed land was delivered to him by the Court of First Subordinate Judge on 18-8-1965 in Execution Case No. 3 of 1959 on its file, that ever since the date of the delivery the petitioner and his men had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the disputed land and that when the harvesting of the standing crops was begun, the respondents threatened the petitioner and his men with dangerous weapons and caused apprehension of breach of the peace.

3. The Police submitted a report before the S.D.M., Bishenpur under Section 107, Cr.P.C. against the respondents. The learned S.D.M. passed an order on 1.11.1965 directing his office to issue summonses to the parties to ascertain if a proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. was to be drawn up. On 14.11.1965 both the parties appeared before him, He heard them orally and passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. and directed the seized paddy etc., to be returned to the respondents.

4. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 91 of 1965 against the respondents before the Sessions Judge. The respondents did not contest the proceeding before the Sessions Judge, The latter submitted the proceedings to this Court for quashing the order of the S.D.M.

5. The point for determination is whether the order of the S.D.M. is correct.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, there is no provision in Sections 107 to 117, Cr.P.C. to summon the parties to ascertain whether any facts and circumstances exist for taking proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. or not. Vide Tulsibala Rakhit v. N.N. Khasan : AIR1953Cal109 . So, the procedure adopted by the learned S.D.M. is illegal. No doubt, the S.D.M. can drop the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. at any stage if he feels that there is no ground for proceeding further and there is no apprehension of breach of the peace. Vide Sheokarau v. Dulla , Thirunavukkarasu v. State : AIR1959Mad339 and Asghar Khan v. State : AIR1964All391 . But, in this case the S.D.M. was not justified in dropping the proceedings. For, the disputed land and the standing crops thereon were delivered to the petitioner by the Court of the First Subordinate Judge on 18.8.1965 in its Execution Case No. 3 of 1959. He is entitled to have his possession of the disputed land and the crops protected by the Courts of law and to prevent breach of peace regarding the same. The learned S.D.M. dropped the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner did not produce further orders of the First Subordinate Judge confirming the delivery of possession of the disputed land to the petitioner. The S.D.. should have given time to the petitioner to produce further orders of the First Subordinate Judge, if he thought that they were necessary. But, in so far as the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. were concerned, the order of delivery of possession of the disputed land to the petitioner by the Court of the First Subordinate Judge on 18.8.1965 was sufficient and the S.D.M. should have acted upon it. Even otherwise, he should have given time to the petitioner to produce further orders of the First Subordinate Judge confirming the delivery proceedings. So, the S.D.M. committed a serious error in dropping the proceedings and directing the return of the seized paddy to the respondents, who had already been dispossessed by the Civil Court in the course of law.

7. It appears that there were previously proceedings between the same parties. Vide Criminal Revision Case No. 4 of 1965 on the file of the District Magistrate, Manipur and Criminal Reference No. 26 of 1967 on the file of this Court, under which a composite order passed by the same S.D.M. was set aside and he was directed to dispose of the case according to law.

8. In the result, the reference is accepted and the impugned order of the S.D.M. is set aside. The case is remanded to him for disposal according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //