Skip to content


Gajadhar Singh Vs. Chunni and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1949All621; 1949CriLJ967
AppellantGajadhar Singh
RespondentChunni and ors.
Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........the parties to have their rights determined by a civil court.3. i see no reason to accept this reference. criminal courts are not intended to be a sort of place for a preliminary skirmish so that the successful party may have the advantage of driving the other side to the civil or the revenue court. during the last few days, i have had a large number of criminal references under section 145, criminal p. c., and i have noticed that this tendency to use section 145 not with the object of preventing a breach of the peace but with the object of getting possession of the property and driving the other side to figure as plaintiff has become very common. the magistrates must guard themselves against the provisions of the section being thus abused, the reference is rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

Malik, C.J.

1. A tendency has now grown in this province to use B. 145, Criminal P. 0., with the object of getting into possession of the property so that the other side may be driven to figure as a plaintiff and may have to prove his- title. The Magistrates seem to have forgotten that 8. 115, Criminal P. C, was enaoted not with the object of giving one party an advantage over the other but with the primary object of preventing breach of the peace when such breach was apprehended.

2. This reference arises out of an application which was filed as far back as 4th July 1916. There has been no breach of the peaoe so far and protracted evidence has been given by be to the parties to prove who was in possession of the property. The learned Magistrate has held that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and as he was not in a position to hold who was in possession of the property he has attached the property under Section 146, Criminal P. C, and directed the parties to have their rights determined by a civil Court.

3. I see no reason to accept this reference. Criminal Courts are not intended to be a sort of place for a preliminary skirmish so that the successful party may have the advantage of driving the other side to the civil or the revenue Court. During the last few days, I have had a large number of criminal references under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and I have noticed that this tendency to use Section 145 not with the object of preventing a breach of the peace but with the object of getting possession of the property and driving the other side to figure as plaintiff has become very common. The Magistrates must guard themselves against the provisions of the section being thus abused, The reference is rejected.


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