2906cwp80.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2010 (Baburao Dewaji Nimsarkar & another Vs. Murlidhar Kkuksu Shinde & others) ........................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for the petitioners. ....... CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 29TH JUNE 2010 The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 06/01/2010 in Revision Application No. 80 of 2009 is subjected to challenge at the instance of first party in the present petition. The first party has presented the complaint to the police authority complaining about dispossession from the disputed premises at the instance of second party prior to about two months of lodging of the report. The report received by the police authority was referred to the Sub Divisional Officer, who initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub Divisional Officer, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, directed the second party to vacate the possession of the premises and further ordered that first party be put in possession. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was subjected to challenge in revision application presented to the Court of Sessions at Chandrapur. Considering the contentions raised by the respective party, the revisional Court was pleased to allow the revision application and quashed the order passed by the Sub 2906cwp80.10.odt 2/2 Divisional Officer. I have perused the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It transpires on perusal of the record that the second party was in possession of the property in question by way of encroachment since about four years, and therefore. it was not open for the Sub Divisional Officer to pass any order in exercise of powers under sub-section (4) of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing dispossession of the second party and handing it over to the first party. Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 145 prescribes exercise of powers by the Magistrate in a case where the alleged dispossession is either two months prior to lodging of report or immediately thereafter. In the instant case, as per the case put up by the first party, their alleged dispossession is four years prior to lodging of the report. In such circumstances, it was not open for the Sub Divisional Officer to issue direction for putting the first party in possession by directing the second party to vacate the possession of the disputed property. The revisional Court has adopted proper approach in the matter while dealing with the issue. The order passed by the revisional Court does not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, stands rejected summarily. JUDGE wwl