Rajaram vs Parvati Bai and Another

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicant has challenged the order dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision No. 104/99 by which, the order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the S.D.M. Sagar in Criminal Case No. 1/98 was set aside and the matter was remanded.

The prosecution''s case, in short is that, a proceeding u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. was initiated by Parvati Bai and Kesharbai that they were entitled to visit a public well and they preferred the right of easement. A civil case was also pending for that purpose. It was prayed that non-applicant Rajaram be stopped in constructing the wall and closing the doors. After considering the entire matter, the learned S.D.M. found that a civil matter is pending between the parties relating to the right of easement and there was no possibility of breaking of the peace due to dispute between the parties therefore vide order dated 10.5.1999, the proceedings u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. were closed.

The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge after considering the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M. and matter was remanded for reconsideration.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the learned S.D.M. found that the right of easement accrued to the respondents was to be considered in the civil Court and if a civil suit was dismissed due to non-appearance then, it could be restored or an appeal could be filed. There was no possibility of breaking of the peace due to that dispute and therefore, the proceedings u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. were closed. No illegality or perversity is visible in the order passed by the learned S.D.M. and therefore, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge could not interfere in that order by way of the revision.

After perusal of the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, it appears that no reason has been mentioned by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge for remanding the case. If he was not satisfied, then he could have passed a contrary order as a revisionary authority, whereas there was no reason shown to remand the matter. Under such circumstances, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M. without any reason therefore, the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge appears to be perverse and without any basis. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cannot be maintained. The original order passed by the learned S.D.M. was passed 14 years prior to the final hearing of the present revision and therefore, after 14 years of the case, it would be apparent that the right of the parties must have been settled in the civil side and therefore, it would not be proper that the matter may be re-opened after 14 years.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The order dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar is set aside, whereas the order dated 10.5.1999 passed by the learned S.D.M. is hereby maintained. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as revisionary Court for information and compliance.