CASE TITLE:
Jitendra Kumar vs Anil Kumar And Another
DATE OF ORDER:
31ST MARCH, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: Jitender Kumar
RESPONDENT: Anil Kumar and Anr
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
SUBJECT
If a civil suit for possession or declaration of title to the same property is pending, the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may be terminated. A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC cannot withdraw proceedings based on an application made by a party to the proceedings; rather, it can do so only after his subjective satisfaction.
BRIEF FACTS
- On August 13, 1997, the Revisionist (Jitendra Kumar) filed an application with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kadipur, requesting that respondent no.1 (Anil Kumar) refrain from interfering with his possession of the property in dispute.
- Following that, the respondent filed a similar application with the SDM Kadipur. In response, the SDM in charge directed the Station In-Charge of Police Station Kadipur to conduct an investigation and submit a report within a week.
- According to the Station in Charge's report, there has been ample tension between both parties as a result of the partition dispute, which could disrupt the peace at any time.
- After being primarily satisfied, the SDM issued an order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., directing both parties to appear before it and file evidence in support of their claim.
- However, within a few days, the revisionist filed an objection before the SDM against his preliminary order, stating that because there is no risk of disruption of peace, law, and order between the parties, he may be allowed to withdraw his case.
- As a result, the SDM dismissed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. while finding that there is no likelihood of disruption of peace, as the first party (revisionist) had himself prayed for no likelihood of disruption of peace.
- The respondent challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge in Sultanpur, who overturned the SDM's order and directed him to issue a new order after hearing the parties on the merits.
- The Revisionist (first-party/Jitendra Kumar) has now moved to the High Court to challenge this order of the ASJ, Sultanpur.
QUESTION RAISED
Whether Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC can withdraw the proceedings upon the application given by a party or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court noted at the outset that the parties in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are not in the role of plaintiff/defendant in a civil suit, and the proceedings are initiated not on the application of any party, but from the movement of the subjective satisfaction under
- Section 145 CrPC, which is recorded by the Magistrate. Concerning the Court's decision to dismiss the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC in the instant case, it was noted that a civil dispute for possession or declaration of title in respect of the same property was already pending adjudication before the High Court.
CONCLUSION
As a result, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and others (2000) 4 SCC 440, the Court decided to dismiss Section 145 CrPC proceedings in the instant case, noting that "...proceedings regarding possession or declaration of title in respect of the same property are pending before this Court under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, wherein question of title adjudicated”
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
