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.

Smt. Rampati Devi, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.

Smt. Rampati Devi, and ors. vs State of Bihar, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 27, 2010
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916039

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
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9653 OF 2002
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

[P. SATHASIVAM ; H.L. GOKHALE, J.J.] - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - Punishment for murder -- Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav was instituted. Sunil Yadav was instituted. On 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at Nawada Sadar Hospital, SI Anil Kumar Gupta recorded the statement of Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav an...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482, 144, 145

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Rampati Devi, and ors.

Advocate Mr. Bharat Lal; Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar, and ors.

Advocate Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482, 144, 145

Excerpt

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......of 2001 whereby a proceeding under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure was converted to the proceeding under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure and both the parties were restrained from going to the disputed land.2. short fact of the case is that a proceeding under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure was initiated on the prayer made by the opposite parties 2 to 21. subsequently, the said proceeding was converted to a proceeding under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure by the order dated 7.2.2002.3. aggrieved with the order of initiation of proceeding under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition. on 7.10.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party nos.2 to 21, this court directed that as an interim measure, further proceedings before the sub- divisional magistrate, nawadah sadar in connection with case no.1316 of 2001 shall remain stayed until further orders and thereafter, on 13.8.2003, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that in the meantime, the order dated 7.2.2002 passed in case no.1316 of 2001 by the s.d.m., nawadah, sadar shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing.4. it was submitted by shri bharat lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute in relation to the land in question was already settled by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to annexure-2 to the petition at pages 20-32. learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically pointed out page-30 internal page-11 of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2001 passed in title suit no.15 of 1990. the learned sub judge-iii, nawadah has declared the title and peaceful possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners. accordingly, it has been submitted that since the competent court of civil jurisdiction has held the title as well as possession of.....

Full Judgment

1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar in Case No.1316 of 2001 whereby a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both the parties were restrained from going to the disputed land.

2. Short fact of the case is that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on the prayer made by the opposite parties 2 to 21. Subsequently, the said proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the order dated 7.2.2002.

3. Aggrieved with the order of initiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 7.10.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party nos.2 to 21, this Court directed that as an interim measure, further proceedings before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar in connection with Case No.1316 of 2001 shall remain stayed until further orders and thereafter, on 13.8.2003, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that in the meantime, the order dated 7.2.2002 passed in Case No.1316 of 2001 by the S.D.M., Nawadah, Sadar shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing.

4. It was submitted by Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute in relation to the land in question was already settled by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition at pages 20-32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has specifically pointed out page-30 internal page-11 of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. The learned Sub Judge-III, Nawadah has declared the title and peaceful possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the competent court of civil jurisdiction has held the title as well as possession of the petitioners, besides the fact that petitioners are still continuing with the peaceful possession over the land in question, there was no requirement by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, has also submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 24th July, 2001 passed in in Ttitle Suit No.15 of 1990, the opposite parties have filed an appeal, which is pending.

6. Shri Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 21 has strongly opposed the contention of Shri Bharat Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted by Shri Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 21 that still the opposite parties are in peaceful possession over the land in question on the strength of parwana issued in their favour by the competent authority. It was stated that since the petitioners were trying to dispossess the opposite parties, they were constrained to file the petition for initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid ground, it was prayed to reject the present petition.

7. I have also heard Shri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State.

8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the judgment and decree dated 24th July,2001 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 1990. Once a competent court of the civil jurisdiction has decided and held title and peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question, the court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to start a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the conversion of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was passed long back in the year 2002 and the said order was already stayed by this Court and this Court, by its order dated 7.10.2002. Keeping in view the fact that order impugned was already stayed by this Court and the court of civil jurisdiction has already held title and possession over the land in question in favour of the petitioners, there is no need to allow the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. to further proceed and as such the impugned order dated 7.2.2002 passed in Case No.1316 of 2001 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawadah and other subsequent orders are hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial