Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 145, 147(2)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 145 to 147- Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Mere fact that Court fails to specifically refer continued existence of apprehension of breach of peace in its final order-Cannot, invalidate proceedings. Once the Court resorts to proce6dings under section 145 or 147, Cs. P. C. and after having recourse to the necessary formalities passes a final order the-mere fact that it fails to specifically refer to the continued existence of an apprehension of breach of peace would not invalidate the proceedings which fact could otherwise be safely presumed. To make such a specific mention of the continued existence of apprehensions of breach of the peace as an essential legal requirement of a valid order would be taking too technical a: view. The statutory provision contained in subsection (5) of section 145 does not make it ,incumbent on the Magistrate to give such a finding. Dwarka Singh and others v. Babu Jamuna Singh and others A I R 1941, Pat. 281 and Malik Manzoor Elahi v. Lala Bishambar Dass and another P L D 1964 S C 137 ref. Dwarka Singh and others v. Babu .Jamuna Singh and others A I R 1941 Pat. 281 distinguished. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 147--` Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Findings of Court in proceed ings under section-Not determinative of rights or titles of parties- Such rights only determinable by a civil Court. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 147(2), proviso Dispute as to possession of immovable property-Words "unless such right has been exercised within three months next before the institution of inquiry" appearing in proviso to subsection (2) of S. 147-Not attracted when party denying very basis of existence of such a right-Finding of Court that lane in dispute had been in existence for last sixty years-Impliedly covered its use by public "within three months next before the instituting of the inquiry Omission to give specific finding in matter, held not vitiative of order. Sirkawal Singh and others v. Bhuja Singh and others A I R 1924 Pat. 784 and Guru Prosad Dhar v. Lachman Ram Ghose 14 Cr. L J 303 ref. Trijogi Narayan Singh and others v.…