0

Criminal revision petition seeking relief against impugned order dismissed because of no irregularity -Jharkhand high court

Criminal revision petition seeking relief against impugned order dismissed because of no irregularity -Jharkhand high court

A criminal revision petition was filed on the ground that the order passed by the lower court was misconceived and illegal and was under the misconception of law and stated that the proceeding cannot be converted from proceedings under section 144 CRPC to under  145 CRPC. the petition was heard and dismissed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of  Rameshwar Mahto and Ors versus  Ishwar Lal Mahto and Ors ( Cr. Rev. No. 763 of 1999(P))

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application challenging  Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1992 ordered by sessions judge and submits that the impugned order is perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as there was a direction passed in the order vide Cr. Rev. No. 30 of 1990 that the actual possession over the disputed land was not present and there was a question of parties entering into title under section 145 CRPC. The counsel further submitted that the matter was in violation of natural justice and some applications have already been filed and decided by lower courts in this matter but no court has decided the possession of land in the concerning matter and the appeal was dismissed by lower courts.

The court hearing the arguments of the counsels and reviewing previous appeals ordered that once the possession was already decided in a civil suit, possession cannot be claimed by the losing party in a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C and in the absence of any case made out the parties came in the possession of the property after a year of filing the suit. hence court does not find any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the aforesaid findings of the learned court below while allowing the revision petition and the order is well reasoned and no interference is required in the matter accordingly present revision petition is dismissed.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat