Skip to content


Shohrat Singh Vs. Daryao Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in15Ind.Cas.495
AppellantShohrat Singh
RespondentDaryao Singh
Cases ReferredHurbullubh Narain Singh v. Luchmeswar Singh
Excerpt:
revision - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), chapter xii, proceedings under--high court, power of. - - thus, he put before the magistrate a case which came clearly within the provision of section 145 of the code provided always that he established the fact that he was in possession and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed. 2. the magistrate then, after considerable delay and various intermediate orders issued, made an order in writing stating that he was satisfied on the ground that a breach of peace did exist about land within the local limits of his jurisdiction and he required shohrat singh and daryao to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of their actual possession of the subject of dispute. this has been laid down..........the side of one shohrat singh. he asked the magistrate to take action under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure. thus, he put before the magistrate a case which came clearly within the provision of section 145 of the code provided always that he established the fact that he was in possession and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.2. the magistrate then, after considerable delay and various intermediate orders issued, made an order in writing stating that he was satisfied on the ground that a breach of peace did exist about land within the local limits of his jurisdiction and he required shohrat singh and daryao to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of their actual possession of the subject of dispute. this.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. The proceedings, out of which this application has arisen, were proceedings instituted by one Daryao. He came to the Magistrate alleging that he was in possession of certain landed property, that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace existed regarding it and that this dispute he further alleged come from the side of one Shohrat Singh. He asked the Magistrate to take action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, he put before the Magistrate a case which came clearly within the provision of Section 145 of the Code provided always that he established the fact that he was in possession and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.

2. The Magistrate then, after considerable delay and various intermediate orders issued, made an order in writing stating that he was satisfied on the ground that a breach of peace did exist about land within the local limits of his jurisdiction and he required Shohrat Singh and Daryao to put in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of their actual possession of the subject of dispute. This application and the findings mentioned above gave the learned Magistrate jurisdiction to proceed under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am told that after he had reached this stage, the Magistrate went wrong and passed certain orders which are said to be without jurisdiction. But, as I understand the law, 1 have no power to send for the record of a case, which in intention and in fact has been begun and has been continued under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the Magistrate has fallen into error, the person aggrieved is not without remedy, but the remedy is not one by way of review from this Court. This has been laid down by this Court in a case which appears to me precisely similar to this Jhingai Singh v. Ram Partab 31 A. 150 : 1 Ind. Cas. 762, 6 A.L.J. 113 : 9 Cr.L.J. 382 and with still greater emphasis by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hurbullubh Narain Singh v. Luchmeswar Singh 26 C. 188 : 3 C.W.N. 49. The application before me is dismissed.


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