Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 145

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), ----S. 145--Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Bargadar and constituted attorney--Competent to initiate proceedings under S. 145, in absence of owner. Dhondhai Singh v. Follet I L R 31 Cal. 48 rel. Peare Lal v. Emperor A I R 1934 All. 853 distinguished. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), ---S. 145-Police report-Not a sacrosanct document-Court not bound to accept result of inquiry arrived at by Police on question of possession. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), ---S. 145-Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Jurisdiction-Rule issued by High Court staying operation of order made in proceeding under 5.145-Subsequent petition disclosing fresh cause of apprehension of breach of peace concerning possession of same property, held, did not debar Magistrate from drawing up fresh proceedings under S. 145 in circumstance Date of hearing: 17th November 1969.   JUDGMENT These two petitions are taken up together for disposal. Petition No. 336 of 1968 arises out of an order passed on 8-11-67 drawing up a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. on the prayer of the first-party-opposite-party Md. Jainuddin Sardar who claimed to be in possession of the disputed land as Bargadar of his landlord Sudhir Kumar Chakrabarty and others. Petition No. 379 of 1969 ,arises out of another proceeding drawn up under section 145, Cr. P. C. on 27-11-68 at the instance of Asit Kumar Raha who claimed to be the constituted atto7ney ' of Sudhir Kumar Chakrabarty and others. In both the cases the, petitioner as well as the opposite-party were restrained from entering upon the disputed land. The second-party petitioner filed revisional applications before the Sessions Judge of Khulna praying for making a reference to this Court for setting aside the impugned orders but the prayers were rejected. Thereafter the petitioner obtained Rules in both the cases. Mr. Golam Hafez the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases challenged the legality of the orders drawing up, proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. restraining the petitioner from entering upon the disputed land. It was contended…