High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 02 JH CK 0007

Prahalad Ram and Others vs Rajendra Ram and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 18 February 2004 · Citation: (2006) 1 JCR 173

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hari Shankar Prasad, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal MP No. 173 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 383 words

Hari Shankar Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.2.2002 passed in criminal revision No. 33 of 1998 whereby and where under the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Giridih set aside the order dated 9.1.1998 passed in case No. 4 of 1998 drawing proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC, and attaching the disputed land u/s 146, Cr PC.

3.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that order dated 9.1.1998 in case No. 4 of 1998 was passed when there was one proceeding which was initiated u/s 144, Cr PC, between the parties in respect of some land and proceeding under 144, Cr PC; was finally disposed of on 13.1.1998. Thereafter, the other side preferred a revision which was numbered as criminal revision No. 15 of 1998 which was dismissed with some observation. During the pendency of revision application, a petition for initiation of the proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC, was filed on 7.1.1998 and a report was called for from the local police, who submitted his report on 8.1.1998 and an order for drawing proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC, was passed on 9.1.1998. Further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when the life of the proceeding u/s 144, Cr PC, was over, conversion of the same proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC, is bad in law. In this connection, he placed reliance upon 1997 (1) E C C 490 (Pat) wherein it has been held that when an order u/s 144, Cr PC, is passed, initiation of proceedings u/s 145, Cr PC, after few days for the same land between the same parties without application of mind cannot be sustained in law.

4.

In the instant case also, as it appears from perusal of the record that proceeding u/s 144, Cr PC, was dropped on 3.1.1998 and soon thereafter drawing of proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC, on 9.1.1998 is bad in law, as per the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 9.1.1998 together with the order attaching property and order dated 14.2.2002 passed in criminal revision No. 33 of 1998 are hereby quashed, Order accordingly.