Skip to content


Jharu Khan and ors. Vs. Sarada Charan Sikdar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.614
AppellantJharu Khan and ors.
RespondentSarada Charan Sikdar and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 107, 145, 439 - proceedings under section 146--order dropping proceedings under section 145 and directing proceeding under section 107--revision--high court, interference by. - 1. proceedings under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure were initiated upon a police report dated the 15th august 1919. the area was not stated in the report, but it appears from a map which is annexed to it that 4,000 bighas were covered within the boundaries given. the first party consists of two tenants and eight agents of the teota raja and the second party consists of six persons who are said to be old tenants, then there is a vague reference to others. as it mentioned an 'imminent fear of a breach of the peace', the whole of this land was attached and the police was directed to sell the standing grass by the sub divisional officer who took cognisance of the matter. both parties objected to the sale of the grass. the petition of the 2nd party was rejected by the sub.....
Judgment:

1. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated upon a Police report dated the 15th August 1919. The area was not stated in the report, but it appears from a map which is annexed to it that 4,000 bighas were covered within the boundaries given. The first party consists of two tenants and eight agents of the Teota Raja and the second party consists of six persons who are said to be old tenants, Then there is a vague reference to others. As it mentioned an 'imminent fear of a breach of the peace', the whole of this land was attached and the Police was directed to sell the standing grass by the Sub Divisional Officer who took cognisance of the matter. Both parties objected to the sale of the grass. The petition of the 2nd party was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer on the 19th August 1999. On the 20th the first party filed a petition before the District Magistrate against that order. That petition, so far as we can make out, was one complaining of the order for the sale of the grass and it is not quite clear from it whether any reference to the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was made in it. The District Magistrate called for the record and directed that if there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace, the order for cutting the grass might be kept in abeyance till the motion was disposed of.

2. Thereafter the Police made a farther report and asked for proceedings to be taken against 22 persons under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Those reports were placed before the District Magistrate. The report was to this effect : that a breach of the peace was apprehended because certain outsiders were setting up one set of tenants against another, and the Police submitted that if those persons were bound down there would be no breach of the peace. They made a further report that after a conference held amongst Police officers they were of opinion that there was no reason for binding down all the 22 persons, but if six persons who were the ringleaders were bound down a breach of the peace would be prevented. After that there were proceedings against those six. The proceedings under Section 145 thereafter came to be dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer : and on the 9th September a petition was put in by the first party tenants, stating that as proceedings were being taken against the ringleaders who were setting up one set of tenants against another and as there was no chance of a breach of the peace between the tenants themselves, the proceedings under Section 145 should be dropped. The matter was fully heard by the Sao Divisional Officer and upon a consideration of the materials then before him he came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 145 ought to be dropped, inasmuch as proceedings under Section 107 would meet the requirements of the case.

3. We do not think we can interfere with the order made, in the circumstances. The Sub-Divisional Officer is responsible far the peace of his subdivision and he has dropped those proceedings after having carefully considered the matter : and even if we had jurisdiction to deal with an order of this character, a point which we do not decide at present, we would have been loath to make an order interfering with the order which the Magistrate had made in the exercise of his discretion. We do not think we ought to interfere with the order made. The report upon which the order was originally made was vague add Unsatisfactory. The Rule is discharged.

4. Having regard to what we have said we cannot interfere with the proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present petitioners are not concerned with these proceedings. The Rule so far as it relates to them is also discharged.


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