Skip to content


Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. S. Lakshminarayana Rao and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Petn. No. 436 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1981CriLJ689
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 145, 146, 146(1) and 482
AppellantPunjab and Sind Bank
RespondentS. Lakshminarayana Rao and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.K.V. Chalapathy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.V. Devaraju, Special Public Prosecutor and ;H.R. Venkataramanaiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 458 cr.p.c., - proceedings were quashed. - and the subsequent provisions in the same section enabling the sub-divisional magistrate to appoint a receiver, are not satisfied by the facts and circumstances of the case......were before him the petitioner and the respondent) under s. 146 of the cr.p.c. in regard to an immovable property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute before him according to the learned sub-divisional magistrate. 2. the petitioner was not a party in those proceedings. that is an undisputed fact. 3. the main grievance of the petitioner is that by the virtue of the order passed by the learned sub-divisional magistrate under s. 146 of the cr.p.c. the petitioner has been dispossessed of the subject-matter of dispute in the said proceeding viz., the immovable property and the receiver appointed by the sub-divisional magistrate has taken possession. the main stand of the petitioner is that there is no such dispute in regard to possession of the immovable property, because the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21-3-1980 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, in case No. MAG. SR 16/79/-80 between respondent-1 and respondent-2 (who were before him the petitioner and the respondent) under S. 146 of the Cr.P.C. in regard to an immovable property, which is the subject-matter of the dispute before him according to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

2. The petitioner was not a party in those proceedings. That is an undisputed fact.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that by the virtue of the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under S. 146 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has been dispossessed of the subject-matter of dispute in the said proceeding viz., the immovable property and the Receiver appointed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has taken possession. The main stand of the petitioner is that there is no such dispute in regard to possession of the immovable property, because the petitioner himself was in actual possession and further that there was no likelihood of breach-of peace on account of dispute in regard to possession of the immovable property. The second stand is that the ingredients of S. 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. and the subsequent provisions in the same section enabling the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to appoint a receiver, are not satisfied by the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The records show that the preliminary order viz., the order passed under sub-section (1) of S. 145 of the Cr.P.C. had been challenged in this Court and this Court has upheld that order.

5. Even in the said criminal revision petition as against the preliminary order the present petitioner had not been made a party.

6. The resulting position from the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs is that according to the present petitioner, he is a person interested in the subject-matter of the dispute before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and his stand is as narrated above in one of the preceding paragraphs. When that is so, sub-section (5) of S. 145 of the Cr.P.C. could be involved by the present petitioner. While invoking sub-section (5) of S. 145 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner is in law entitled to invoke the proviso to S. 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. also. The petitioner can act in the aforementioned manner by approaching the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and claim relief at the hands of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When that is so, I do not find any sufficient reasons for the petitioner to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. and for this court to exercise its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C.

7. It is with these observations that this petition is dismissed.

8. Petition allowed.


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