AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.—This revision has been directed against order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 230 of 1997, Ram Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Sri Awadhesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite parties and the learned A.G.A. have been heard.
Instant revision arose out of the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The record shows that on 26.7.1997, a preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rasra district Ballia. During the pendency of the proceedings, application for attachment u/s 146(1) of the Code was given. Opposite party No. 2 filed objection against it. The objection was rejected and the property was attached by order dated 16.9.1997. The opposite party No. 2 filed a revision against the said order which has been allowed by the impugned order and the order dated 16.9.1997 has been set aside. The revisional court was of the view that there is no specific finding that the case was one of emergency. The revisional court was also of the view that since there is an order of status quo dated 5.2.1996 passed in civil suit between the parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have made any order in derogation of the order of the civil court.
It is not in dispute that plot Nos. 671 and 514, which are in dispute, are also subject-matter of the civil suit filed by late Shyam Sundari against the opposite party No. 2, Ram Bahadur Tiwari, being Case No. 976 of 1995 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division, West), Ballia. The order dated 5.2.1996 directs both the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. This order has been passed on an application for ad interim injunction moved by the Plaintiff, late Shyam Sundari. In the order dated 5.2.1996, the Court has not categorically recorded any finding as to which of the two parties was in possession over the plot in suit. The order to maintain status quo is a fluid one and vague and each party may try to take advantage of this order and assert his possession. The record shows that no effective order has been passed by the civil court as to which of the party is in possession or entitled for possession. The purpose and object of the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code is to maintain law and order and to prevent the breach of peace by the parties from taking the law in their hands. The record shows that still there is no concluded finding of the civil court in favour of either of the parties. In the above background when the position about the possession is vague, the order of attachment passed u/s 146(1) of the Code cannot be faulted with. The observation of the lower revisional court that no finding has been recorded that it was a case of emergency appears to be wrong because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has found that the matter is of emergency. The view which is being taken finds support from the cases of Raj Bahadur and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1994 ACR 580: (31) 1994 ACC 654; Raju and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994 ACR 546 : (31) 1994 ACC 537 and Siya Ram and Ors. v. Guru Dutt and Ors. (32) 1995 ACC 336.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed and the order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 230 of 1997 is set aside and the order dated 16.9.1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rasra, district Ballia is restored.
The judgment be certified to the lower court and the record be sent back.