CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2001) 03 SC CK 0086

Ugrasena Sahu and Others vs Khutulu Sahu

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 12 March 2001 · Citation: (2001) 3 PLJR 194

HON’BLE JUDGES
U.C. Banerjee, J · G.B. Pattanaik, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2001 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3793 of 2000)

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 · 360 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the High Court of Orissa in a Criminal Revision, on an application being filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure

3.

On the basis of the materials produced, the Magistrate disposed of the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the Appellants were in possession of the disputed land on the date of issuance of the preliminary order under sub-section (1) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure Against the said order an application was filed to the Revisional Court but the revision itself, was dismissed and the order of the Magistrate holding the possession of the land in favour of the Appellants was affirmed. This order was assailed in the High Court by filing a petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure The High Court by the impugned order, being of the opinion that the present Respondent had not been given opportunity of finding his written statement and adduce evidence in support of his case, set aside the impugned direction and remitted the matte It is against this order, the present appeal has been preferred.

4.

It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the jurisdiction of the High Court filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be exercised sparingly and in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. where them is no finding that there has been no doe service of notice after expiry of 11 years, it was not appropriate for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C. and interfere when the remedy lies by filing a civil suit for necessary relief. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. In our view, the high Court erred in law in exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr. P.C. in interfering with the order of the Magistrate declaring possession in a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. We accordingly quash the impugned order of the high Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Magistrate stands affirmed.