lench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N1 .ivi.r. r^u^ai '2011 ^-^ a* PETITIONER ^^ ^'^s.-'^" ^"s^y'""^ ".;'^>'^..\-^\ ••••"^y^' ^ Sheshnarayan s//o Kapil Prasad Pandey, Aged about 42 years R/o Village Panchbhaiya, Police Station Dondi, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : VERSUS 1) Shyamleshran S/o Ka.pil Pra.sa.d Pandey, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Panchbhaiya, Police Station Dondi, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durs ir. n. l^.u.J 2) State of Chhattisgarh k- Through : Aduitional , Oovt. Advocate / District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDU UKllr ^. ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Cr.M.P. No.91/2011 Sheshnarayan Versus Shyamleshran and another PETITiON UNDER SECTiON 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMiNAL PROCEDURE Present: - Shri Vivek Rathore, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27h of September, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 20/01/2011 passed by the Revisional Court whereby order dated 14/09/09 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bemetara, District-Durg attaching property in dispute, has been affinned. 3. Leamed Counsel for fhe petitioner contended that mere dispute between tfae parties could not justify attachment of property In exercise of powers under Section 146 of Crimuial Procedure Code. Learaed counsel submits fhat unless satisfaction is recorded fhat the case is one of emergency or fhat on the basis of material on record decides that none of thein was in possession or when he is unable to • .'../ f"'_^- satisfy hunseM, as to which oftheia was in such possession, then only conld be passed wifh regard to attachment of property in dispute. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat fhe learaed Magistrate passed the order of attachment on 14/09/09, wifhout proper consideration of the material avaiiable on record, to come to fhe conclusion that case of emergent nature has come up warrantmg attacluuent. It is submitted fhat fhe partition between fhe parties has already taken place long back and fhe parties have remained in possession of fheir respective shares, and fherefore, mere dtepute could not justify such an order. It is subm.itted that by mechanicaUy uivokiag the statutory power of attachment, without assessment of material on record, the process of law has been abused, warrantmg interference toy tihis Coiirt m exercise of powers iiuder Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. A perusal of order dated 14/09/09 passed by fhe Magistrate shows fhat the Magista-ate, before passing fhe order has considered Uie aspect wifh regard to necessily of attachment of the property m dispute. He has taken into consideration fhe submission uicluding the material, which is avaiiable on record and has recorded specificaUy fhat the situation prevailuig requires the Magistrate to attach fhe disputed properly. The Magistrate has considered fhat it is the stariding crop on the iand and both the pames have seriously disputed with regard to fhe question of possession. The order passed ia such circumstances cannot be said to be wifhout anv basis. At fhe imtial stage of ftie proceeding under Section 145 where preluuinary order has been passed by ffae Magistrate and detaUed evidence is yet to be recorded, fhe exercise undertaken caiuiot be said to be bad on the ground that detailed evidence is not available on record. T'he power of attachment has been conferred on the Magistrate, to meet out emergency situation, and at that particular stage, the discretion is to be exercised by ttie Magistrate, on fhe basis of whatever material avaflable on record. Having considered fhe order of fhe Magistrate, I am not mcliaed to accept fhe submission of learned counsel for fhe petitioner fhat the order has been passed inechanicaDy. The Magistrate has recorded speciGc fmding on the basis of material available and submissions and has proceeded to record reasons for attachnient of fhe property ui dispute. In the opinion of fhis Court, it satisfies the requirement of law, particularly consideriag ttie stage, when detaUed oral evidence is not available on record. The Revislonal Court has ateo considered the aspect and has afih-med fhe order passed by the Magistrate. In fhat view of fhe matter, it is difflcult for fhis Court to hold fhat fhe order of attachment is a result of the abuse of the process of law or ia anv manner resulted m miscarriage of jusnce. 6, The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tihat the proceedings have remained pending before fhe Magistrate for a very long tim.e and the property remains under attachment, which has 4 ® depnved the petinoner of his nsOxt of eniovment, fherefore, fhe Magistrate may be directed to finalty decide fhe matter at the earUest. 7. A perusal of fhe proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate shows fhat the evidence has not been recorded obviously for uie reasons fhat the record was suiumoned by fhe Revisional Court, which remained there tUl the decision of the revision petition, and fhereafter, it was suminoned by this Court. 8. In ftiese cu-ciunstartces, it is directed fhat fhe proceednigs under Section 145 ofCr.P.C. shaU be concluded as expeditiousty as possible preferably wifhin a period of four months froia fhe date of receipt of fhe records. 9. If it is found fhat the respondents are delaying the proceedings, fhe Magistrate may pass appropriate order wifhdrawing fhe order of attachment. 10. Record ofthe Court below be sent forthwith. 11. With fhe aforesaid direction, the petition is fmally dteposed ofi'. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge Laxmi ^