Manohar Mahto, son of Nathan Mahto, resident of village Domandih, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu v. The State of Jharkhand and Others
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 624 of 2014 ---- Manohar Mahto, son of Nathan Mahto, resident of village Domandih, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Opposite Parties ----
Legal Reasoning
seven years, in our view the very purpose of the judicial process gets defeated. Any such proceeding cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely if these is no apprehension of breach of peace or any new dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning land or water or boundaries thereof. It also goes against the principle of expeditious disposal of the cases. No harm is likely to be caused to the parties who can seek the redressal of their grievances in civil court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case it appears that the parties have remained litigating in this proceeding under section 145 of the Code for two decades since it appears that the proceeding under section 144 of the Code was started on 24.6.1966 and was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code on 23.7.1966. Hence we hold that the urgent proceeding under section 145 of the Code must be treated to be closed after a lapse of seven years as an urgency cannot be said to continues beyond this period. In suitable cases, however, there can be no bar in starting a fresh proceeding under section 145 of the Code if the situation so warrants.” 8. Considering that till date the said case is still pending and also considering that sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C are meant for emergent situation and if any law and order problem are there, these sections are invoked, in that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 19.11.2013 passed in M.P.No.107 of 2004/ M-01 of 2005, pending before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu, Ranchi is set aside. 9. It is made clear that if any emergent situation will be there, the authority may consider it in accordance with law. 10.
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State :- :- --- Mr. K.S.Nanda, Advocate Mrs.Vandana Bharti, Advocate ---- 8/28.04.2023 Heard Mr. K.S.Nanda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mrs.Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for respondent State. 2. Notice upon the O.P.Nos.3 and 4 have been effected and inspite of that they have chosen not to appear. By order dated 30.08.2022, the matter was adjourned in anticipation of appearance of O.P.No.3 and 4 and it was observed that if they will not appear on the next date, appropriate order shall be passed. Accordingly this petition is being heard on merit. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2013 passed in M.P.No.107 of 2004/ M-01 of 2005, pending before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu, Ranchi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P.No.2 and 3 has filed application for initiation of proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bundu on 2.12.2004 with respect to land comprised within plot no.319, 385 and 387 under khata no.8, having total area of 96 decimals of village Domandih as there was a dispute between the parties and on account of tense situation a report was called for from office of concerned police station and thereafter notice was issued to present petitioner and then proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. The petitioner made appearance and file show case with prayer to drop the proceeding. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both 2 parties have appeared in the proceeding and filed show cause in the year 2006 itself and after hearing both parties learned court by order dated 4.3.2005 has converted it under section 145 Cr.P.C. He submits that after converting it under section 145 Cr.PC, the learned court has placed the same for evidence and till date matter is still pending. He submits that the petition filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2012 with prayer to drop the proceeding initiated by order dated 5.3.2005 has been rejected merely referring the judgment in case of Ram Chandra Rai and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1991 BBCJ pg.100. He submits that learned court rejected the petition only on the ground that evidence is already going on. 6. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that learned court has rejected the petition considering that evidence was going on. 7. It is admitted fact that section 144 Cr.P.C proceeding was initiated on petition dated 4.01.2005 the same was converted under section 145 Cr.P.C by order dated 4.3.2005. The petitioner filed petition on 19.06.2012 for closing of the case. Considering that nine years has elapsed and nothing concrete has come forward and there is no doubt that proceeding under section 144 and 145 Cr.P.C are meant for emergent situation and such matters are required to be disposed of expeditiously. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Rai and Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1991 BBCJ pg.100. Paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “5. While provision of section 144 of the Code deal with urgent case of nuisance or apprehended danger, the provision of section 145 of the Code also deals with a situation when an apprehension of breach of peace exists or continues. In this view of the matter, the provisions of these two sections can be said to be for urgent steps to be taken by a Magistrate to meet any apprehension of breach of peace. As such these provisions are in the nature of emergency provisions. If, however, a proceeding 3 under section 145 of the Code remains pending for more then seven years without any fresh allegation of an apprehension of breach of peace, we feel, that such a proceeding should not be allowed to continue beyond this period since obviously it cannot be said that there is any longer any urgency in the matter. In the meantime, the parties will have ample opportunity to go to a civil court of competent jurisdiction to get their right, title or interest, as also their claim for possession over the disputed land decided finally instead of going to the Magistrate under section 145 of the Code. If the proceeding under section 145 of the Code under the aforesaid condition is allowed to continue beyond a period of
Decision
Cr.M.P. No.624 of 2014 is disposed of. 11. Pending petition also stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)