<^°^ IN THB HIGH COURT OF JXJDK^Tl^^ AT BILASPUR ar._jM,P.J o, 67 pf 2008 Petitioner Resoondents Jagdamba Prasad Agrawal Versixs Harbaas Siagh Arora aad ofhers ^ Post for order on / ^ Februaiy, 2008 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge X3; mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.Q.) Cr. M.P. No. 67 of 2008 Sissgle BeaicSsi: Hoa^Me Shri Justiee T.P. Shayma. Petitioner Resppndents Jagdamba Prasad Agrawal, aged about 54 years, S/o Shri Kishaa Lal Agrawal, R/o Pendra P.S. Pendra, District BUaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Harbans Siagh Arora, aged about 50 years 2, Panja Siagh, aged about 45 years Both S/o Late Mehar Singh 3. Pyad Bai, aged about 40 years, W/o Paaja Siagh 4. Awtar Siagh S/ o Paaja Siagh, aged about 30 years, 5. Miirma S/o Paxya Singh, aged about 30 years, Respondents 1 to 5 aUl r/o ofGaureUa P.S. GaureUa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Gurubaksh Siagh (Dead) age about 50 years R/o Pendra , P.S, Pendra District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh, tlirough fhe Collector, Distri.et Bilaspzir (C.G.) PETITION UNDBR SBCTION 482 OF CRIMIWAL PRQCBDURE CODE, 1973 Present : Shri A. V. Shridhar, Advocate for fhe Petitioner. 1. ORDBR (Passed on / ^ Febmary. 2008) This petition is directed agaiast fhe order dated 26th Deceinber, 2007 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Peudra Road, Distdct BUaspur in Criminal Revision No. 32/2007, affirming the order dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by fhe Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pendra Road, Distnct Bilaspur iti Crunmal Case No. 78/1996. The short point iavolved iti titiis petition is whether fhe proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Crixniaal Procedure (hereiaafter referred to as, 'the Code^ may be dropped aad whefher at fhe time of droppiag of the proceediags, the Executive Magistrate is not conipetent to pass aiiy direction relatmg to the possession. The proceeding was iaitiated iiader Section 145 of the Code between fhe respondent No. 1 aad 2 to 5 aad fhe property was attached aiid it was taken m Suprudnama to fhe petitioner vide order dated 28.9.1998. Civil suites were filed by fhe parties. Piaatly, ia civil suit, possession of fhe Non-appUcaiit No. 2 Paaja Siagh on tihie date of dispute under Section 145 of the Code was held. In accordaace wifh. the findiag of fhe ciwl suit, proceediag under Section 145 of fhe Code was coiae to aa end. The possession ofthe respondent No. 2 Paaja Siagh on fhe date ofdispute i.e. 4.10.1996 was declared, The order oftfaie Executive Magistrate was upheld by fhe order impugned. The Executive Magistrate has issued a notice of retura of possession of the disputed laad to the petitioner. It is subinitted on behall'ofthe petitioner fhat fhe property ia question was given ia Suprudnama by flie Court vide order dated 28.09.1998. Aftenvards, he entered iiito fhe agreeinent to purchase fhe said property froin fhe Non-appUcaat No. 2. 6. Learaed counsel appeariag for the petitioner has placed reliaace upon fhe decision of High Coiirt of Allahabad rendered ia fhe matter of Suresh NatSi Pattdey v. 8tate of Uttar Pradesh and aaother [274 CrimesII-1985(l)jl. In Siaresh Nath Paadey?s (supra), it has been held that at tfae stage ofSection 145(4), Crimmal Procedure Code, the Magistrate caa weU, before entermg iato discussion concemiag possession on fhe material date, first consider in titiat judgnient whefher apprehension of breach of peace continues; aad tf on evidence on record he fhen conies to a couclusion that such apprehension of breach of peace has ceased to exist, he will naturaUy conclude the proceediags wifhout farther entermg i&to fhe question ofpossession and graating a declaration as conteiaplated under Section 145, Cniniaal Procedure Code. This is fhe only proper procedure. 7. Learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner Iias also placed reliaace upon fhe decision of High Court of DeUii rendered ia fhe matter of Suresh Roop Lal Bhalla and others v. State and another [2003 (11) AIC 862 (Del.. H.C.jR. In Suresh Roop Lal Bhalla and others?s (supra), it has bcen held fhat after mitiation the proceediags under Section 145 ofthe Code, fhe Executive Magistrate is required to decide fhe entitlement of possession, but if fhe party acquired physical possession of property even on fhe basis of a fraudulent ineaiis, fhen he camiot be ousted wifhout recourse to due process ofcivil law. 8. Learaed counsel appearmg tbr the petitioner has also placed reUaace upon fhe decision of High Court of Sikkioi rendered ia fhe matter of Tslaeriag Waxigchuk Bhutia aad others v< Naksingh Bhutia and otliers (1983 CRI.L.J. 1904)3. In ^ Tsheriiig Wangchuk Bhutia smd others ?s (supra), it has been held that the Magistrate is required to decide which party was ia possession. 9. Proceediags under Section 145 of the Code niay be iaitiated on the basis of dispute of laiid Mkely to cause breach of peace aad fhe Executive Magistrate is required to decide tfae entitiement of possession ia accordaace with sub-section (4) offhe Section 145 ofthe Code. 10. In fhe iastaat case, fhe petitioner is not party to fhie proceediags. He is siinpUcitor Supruddar of fhe property ia coiapUaace of the order of the Court. The Magistrate has declared the entitlement of possession exist on fhe date of initiation of the proceediags. Supraddar has no right to contmue or claioi possessiou under Section 145 of fhe Code. He is required to coniply fhe order of fhe Court. If any riglit acquires afterwards, then he niay reinedy before the appropriate forum. 11, Consequently, fhe petition beiag devoid ofmerit is liable to be disiaissed aad disnxissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge B/-