w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pramod Kumar Singh v/s State of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- A. KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19201UP1995PTC018833

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR & CO PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014540

Company & Directors' Information:- S KUMAR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45203DL1964PTC117149

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1986PTC041038

Company & Directors' Information:- P KUMAR & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27105WB1998PTC087242

Company & Directors' Information:- M KUMAR AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1982PTC014823

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

    Cr.Misc 34177 Of 2003

    Decided On, 17 April 2006

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

    For the Appearing Parties: -----------



Judgment Text

NAVIN SINHA, J.

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 as also the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner questions the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in a pending proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The opposite party No. 2 filed an application on 3.5.2003 for initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. arising out of an apprehension of breach of peace by the reason of residential construction being made by the petitioner upon the subject lands in Mauza Mohammad pur, Khata No. 76 Khesara No. 344, measuring 4 Katha 14 dhurs 10 dhurki The. Subdivisional Magistrate called for a report from, the police. The report dated 7.5.2003 at Annexure 3 states that presently the opposite party (petitioner herein) was carrying on construction work upon the lands. Two brick rooms with a thatched roof had been built, earth had been filled for levelling the land and 15 pillars had been constructed by the opposite party (petitioner herein). The proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. were then initiated requiring the parties to file their show cause with a direction to both parties not to go upon the lands. On 21.7.2003 the proceedings were converted into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute between the parties that this was so done during subsistence of the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

(4.) On 8.8.2003 a report was again submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the petitioner who was in possession of the land was continuing with construction work upon the same despite instructions not to do so.

(5.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the application of the opposite party under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. was heard on 24.10.2003 and. the matter was then posted on the same day to 11.11.2003. The order sheet of the proceedings however shows that the Sub Divisional Magistrate later passed an order of attachment on 24.10.2003 itself posting the matter for further consideration on 11.11.2003. This order of 24.10.2003 was recorded in the ordersheet as 24.11.2003. There was no occasion for the Magistrate to record the date of the order as 24.11.2003 when he was posting the matter for 11.11.2003. Quite obviously the order was antedated order, where the matter itself had been adjourned to 11.11.2003 for orders on 146(1) Cr.P.C. matter. He next submits that in view of the report of the police dated 7.5.2003 and 8.8.2003 it was not in controversy that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question. There was thus no occasion for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to attach the subject property which in any event were residential house property, in a proceeding purportedly under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.. The order of attachment itself records that it was apparent from the police report that the petitioner was in possession of the land. The present was therefore clearly not a case where the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the subject of the dispute or that none of the parties was in possession and therefore the case was one of emergency to prevent any untoward incident taking place requiring attachment of the property. In any event there was a Title Suit No. 162 of 1993 pending in which on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 orders for status quo had been passed as far back as on 2.12.1993 and at which stage the in junction matter remained pending. Learned Counsel next submits that this Court on 13.5.2004 while issuing notice to opposite party No. 2 stayed operation of the order of attachment ' under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Notwithstanding the same opposite party No. 2 filed a fresh application on 28.7.2004 before, the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. This was objected to by the petitioner in view of the pendency of the present application and the interim order therein. Notwithstanding the same the Magistrate called for a report from the Police. The Report dated 17.8.2004, again confirmed that the petitioner was in possession of the lands and had made certain constructions. thereupon. The Sub Divisional Magistrate nonetheless proceeded to initiate a fresh proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and converted the same into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 22.9.2004. He submits that this was clearly an act: to overreach the orders of this Court, and was vitiated by malafides.

(6.) Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the Magistrate lad issued verbal orders in the original proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. restraining the petitioner from making construction. Nonetheless as reported by the police on 8.8.2003 the petitioner insisted to continue with the construction work. This was therefore clearly a case, of emergency in terms of Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. as the petitioner continued to flout the law and therefore the order of attachment was valid in law. It was next submitted that notwithstanding the order of this Court dated 13.5.2004 staying the operation of the attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. there was no bar to the Magistrate in acting afresh, if materials be placed before him with regard to any subsequent development leading to fresh apprehension of breach of peace.

(7.) This court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and has gone through the materials placed on record by them. The records of the original proceeding in Misc. Case No, 531(M) of 1993 had also been summoned by this Court on 7.10.2004. This Court has gone through the original records also.

(8.) The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were concerned with the question of possession only. The right to possession or title is not to be decided in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is a provision which may be described as an arrangement to preserve peace in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in specified conditions. The conditions specified clearly are that the Magistrate decides that none of the parties was in possession or he was unable to satisfy himself as to which one of them was in possession of the subject of dispute. Quite obviously if the Magistrate was unable to decide as to which one of them was in possession of the subject of dispute it was clearly a case of emergency in view of the rival claims of the contesting parties. Likewise if none of them was in possession it was clearly a case of emergency where both of them could have sought to enforce their right of possession. But. clearly where one of them is in possession and there were materials before the magistrate to that effect along with construction having been made by one of them enforcing fact of such possession, this Court finds it difficult to appreciate as to what was the emergency before the Magistrate to invoke the extreme powers under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.. It has been noticed above that there were no order of restraint against the petitioner from making construction upon the land. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has clearly conceeded that there were only verbal orders to that effect. The Magistrate was clearly not powerless under the provisions of law to take action against: the petitioner in the event that he was acting against the orders of the, Magistrate passed in a judicial proceeding. The concept of oral orders in a judicial proceeding is unknown to the law. If the petitioner was, in possession of the land and was making construction thereupon, this Court finds it difficult to appreciate the satisfaction of the Magistrate that construction being raised by the petitioner upon, the land in his possession was a situation of emergency, more particularly in the absence of any order of restraint. This Court therefore finds it difficult to sustain the order of the Magistrate attaching the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. The same is accordingly set aside.

(9.) This Court for the reasons of the conclusion arrived at presently does not consider it necessary to deal with the submission of the petitioner with regard to the antedating of the order of attachment. Likewise, this Court is not: persuaded to consider the submission of the petitioner that the Magistrate in collusion with the opposite party No. 2 had tried to override the orders of this Court by Initiating fresh proceedings under Sections 144/145 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the present application and the interim order herein. Suffice it to say that from the submissions made by the petit

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ioner in the supplementary affidavit filed today initiating fresh proceedings by the Magistrate, this Court is far from satisfied of the bonafides of the Sub Divisional Magistrate with regard to the same. (10.) The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are pending. The order of attachment under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. has been found by this Court not to be justified and has been set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it proper to direct that the Sub Divisional Magistrate decide the substantive matter under Section 145 Cr.P.C. expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Any order passed by the Magistrate shall obviously be subject to the orders that may be passed in the civil suit between the parties by the competent court of law. This application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above, with directions as contained.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-05-2020 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Maha Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-05-2020 Most. Sangeeta Singh Versus Bindhyachal Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-05-2020 Malvinder Mohan Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
14-05-2020 Manish Kumar Yadav & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-05-2020 Swapan Kumar Saha Versus Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Mohomed Saleem Versus R. Senthil Kumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2020 Anil Kumar @ Anil Versus State by Kodigehalli Police Station, Rep. by its Station House Officer High Court of Karnataka
13-05-2020 Jagmail Singh & Another Versus Karamjit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
12-05-2020 Jodhan Singh & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-05-2020 Pawan Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 M. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by the State Police Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
09-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Versus Rakesh Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 State (Through) Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Kalyan Singh (Former CM of Up) & Others Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Virendra Kumar Versus Vijay Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-05-2020 Vijay Kumar Agrahari Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-05-2020 The State (NCT of Delhi) Versus Sanjeev Kumar Chawla High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Triloki Nath Singh Versus Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs & Others Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Sarmukh Singh & Others Versus Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 Jitender Kumar @ Rajan Versus Kamlesh High Court of Delhi
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mahendra Singh Versus Commissioner of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Dr. Somu Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 For the Petitioner: Suo Moto, Deba Siddiqui, Swetashwa Agarwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.A., Manish Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-04-2020 Col Ramneesh Pal Singh Versus Sugandhi Aggarwal High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Sunder Kumar & Others Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Naresh Kumar Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Hira Singh & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Ram Subhag Singh & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-04-2020 Pradip Kumar Maji Versus Coal India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-04-2020 Aman Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-04-2020 Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh & Others Versus Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Supreme Court of India
16-04-2020 Krishnapal Singh Versus Managing Director U.P.S.R.T.C. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-04-2020 Harnam Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Bijender Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
09-04-2020 Manoj Kumar Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-04-2020 Dr. Shivender Mohan Singh (In J.C.) Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Chetan Singh Versus R.C. Chadda High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy Versus Arpita Singha Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 State Versus Krishan Kumar High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta Versus State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Pawan Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Gurcharan Singh & Others Versus Angrez Kaur & Another Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-03-2020 Gajender Singh Versus The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Another High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ranvijay Singh @ Dharaka Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. & Others Versus Bikram Kumar Jaiswal West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-03-2020 Mukesh Hyundai Versus Ankur Kumar Roy National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Amar Kumar Saraswat Versus M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Dr. Ajay Kumar Versus Indu Bala Mishra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 Subodh Kumar & Others Versus Commissioner of Police & Others Supreme Court of India
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Munna Kumar Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Gurmukh Singh Lehal Versus Ajanta Coop. House Building (1st) Society Ltd., Chandigarh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 A. K. Singh, Chief Publicity Inspector, Public Relation Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi Versus General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 GBM Developers & Promoters P Ltd., Through its Director, Subhash Bansal, Chandigarh Versus Col. Sukhwant Singh Saini National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Gyanendra Singh & Others Versus State Of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Finance & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Ashawati Singh & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation off India, Thrpugh Divisional Manager, Allahabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Dalip Kumar & Others Versus State of Delhi High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Vijay Kumar Singh Versus Rana Cooperative Housing Society & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Uaday Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Kishore Kumar & Another Versus The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, EDF-III, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Amar Kumar Paikra Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-03-2020 Shambhu Singh Chauhan & Another Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-03-2020 Soban Singh Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box