Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Partap Singh Vs. Swaran Singh and ors.

Partap Singh vs Swaran Singh and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Jammu and Kashmir Decided Nov 18, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901599

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
561-A Cr. PC No. 64/2005
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1989 - Sections 145, 145(1) and 561A; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1977 - Order 39

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Partap Singh

Advocate D.R. Khajuria, Adv.

Respondent

Swaran Singh and ors.

Advocate J.M. Razdan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1989 - Sections 145, 145(1) and 561A; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1977 - Order 39
Reported In
2006(2)JKJ375

Excerpt

- j.p. singh, j.1. order dated 17-10-2003 passed by additional district magistrate, jammu, under section 145 cr.pc was quashed by this court vide its order dated 2-4-2004. the case was remanded to the learned additional district magistrate for proceeding afresh in the matter in accordance with law.2. rather than considering the case for passing orders under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure, learned magistrate without recording requisite satisfaction under section 145 cr.pc and drawing preliminary order under the aforesaid section, has proceeded to issue an order on 14-5-2005, whereby he has directed maintenance of status quo. it is this order, which has been questioned by the petitioner through the medium of this petition under section 561-a cr.pc.3. a magistrate, seized of a petition or proceedings seeking initiations of proceedings under section 145 cr.pc, is not possessed of any jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of attachment or the like of the subject matter of dispute until a preliminary order under section 145(1) is passed. he does not even otherwise have any jurisdiction to pass an injunctive direction contemplated by order xxxix of the code of civil procedure.4. the order impugned is, thus, without jurisdiction. it is accordingly quashed.the magistrate is directed to proceed strictly in terms of order of this court dated 2-4-2004, and in accordance with law.this petition is accordingly allowed.

Full Judgment

J.P. Singh, J.

1. Order dated 17-10-2003 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Jammu, under Section 145 Cr.PC was quashed by this Court vide its order dated 2-4-2004. The case was remanded to the learned Additional District Magistrate for proceeding afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

2. Rather than considering the case for passing orders under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate without recording requisite satisfaction under Section 145 Cr.PC and drawing preliminary order under the aforesaid Section, has proceeded to issue an order on 14-5-2005, whereby he has directed maintenance of status quo. It is this order, which has been questioned by the petitioner through the medium of this petition under Section 561-A Cr.PC.

3. A magistrate, seized of a petition or proceedings seeking initiations of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC, is not possessed of any jurisdiction or authority to pass an order of attachment or the like of the subject matter of dispute until a preliminary order under Section 145(1) is passed. He does not even otherwise have any jurisdiction to pass an injunctive direction contemplated by Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The order impugned is, thus, without jurisdiction. It is accordingly quashed.

The magistrate is directed to proceed strictly in terms of order of this Court dated 2-4-2004, and in accordance with law.

This petition is accordingly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial