Skip to content


Mahal Singh, Doolsingh Vs. Mahalsingh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1957CriLJ292
AppellantMahal Singh, Doolsingh
RespondentMahalsingh
Cases ReferredLadi v. Chotia
Excerpt:
- - it has been recommended by him that the order of the magistrate dated the 9th of february, 1952 should be set aside and he be directed to proceed further with the inquiry under section 145 of the criminal procedure code according to law......magistrate, udaipur. during the pendency of that case the complainant also approached the anti ejectment officer on the 22nd of november, 1951 and ultimately obtained an order from him for his reinstatement as regards the plot of 17 bighas out of the total plot of 40 bighas in respect of which proceedings under section 145 were continuing. a copy of the order of the anti ejectment officer was produced by the opposite side in the court of the magistrate and the learned magistrate on the basis of that order shelved the proceedings on the 9th february, 1952. the complainant then went in revision to the court of the learned sessions judge, jhunjhunu which has resulted in this reference,3. the proceedings under the rajasthan tenants protection ordinance are quite distinct from the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ranawat, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. It has been recommended by him that the order of the Magistrate dated the 9th of February, 1952 should be set aside and he be directed to proceed further with the inquiry under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code according to law.

2. On a complaint filed by Mahalsingh son of Doolsingh a case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was registered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur. During the pendency of that case the complainant also approached the Anti Ejectment Officer on the 22nd of November, 1951 and ultimately obtained an order from him for his reinstatement as regards the plot of 17 bighas out of the total plot of 40 bighas in respect of which proceedings under Section 145 were continuing. A copy of the order of the Anti Ejectment Officer was produced by the opposite side in the court of the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate on the basis of that order shelved the proceedings on the 9th February, 1952. The complainant then went in revision to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu which has resulted in this reference,

3. The proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance are quite distinct from the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the nature of the two proceedings are quite different. The proceedings under Section 145 are to prevent disturbance of the public peace and the proceedings under the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance are to help the tenants to get an order of reinstatement on a summary inquiry. Simply because the Anti Ejectment Officer made an order of reinstatement of the petitioner, the Magistrate ought not to have shelved the proceedings under Section 145 if in his opinion there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The order of the Magistrate is, therefore, not proper in law. Attention of this Court has been invited to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ladi v. Chotia decided on the 23rd of July, 1953. In that case the point was left open whether on account of the decision of the matter regarding restatement in the court of the Anti Ejectment Officer, the proceedings under Section 145 should or should not be dropped. In that case there was a dispute between the parties relating to a number of fields and the decision of the Anti Ejectment Officer covered only some of them. It was under these circumstances held by this Court that the Magistrate should proceed with the case under Section 145 and make such use of the judgment of the Anti Ejectment Officer as is permissible under the law. In the present case also the judgment of the Anti Ejectment Officer relates to only a portion of the land in question in respect of which the proceedings under Section 145 were going on. The aforesaid judgment of this Court leads further support to the view that the Magistrate should be directed to proceed further with the case under Section 145 and he should not Shelve the proceedings on account of the judgment Of the Anti Ejectment Officer. He is however competent to take note of the judgment of the Anti Ejectment Officer and make such use of it as is permissible in law. The purpose of the proceedings linger Section 145 is to prevent the disturbance of the public peace and the decision by the Anti Ejectment Officer cannot meet that end. It was, there-fore, not proper for the Magistrate to have shelved the proceeding merely on the ground that a decision had been given by the Anti Ejectment Officer relating to a portion of that property.

4. This reference is accepted and the Magistrate is directed to proceed further with the case under Section 145 from the point where he had dropped it. It is however, open to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings if he comes to the conclusion that there is no further apprehension of a breach of the peace.


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