Kailu Mahato vs Shiv Shankar Mahto & Ors. on 24 March, 2011

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2000 (R)

                 Kaila Mahato               ...      ...     ...   Petitioner
                             ---Versus---
                 1.Shiv Shankar Mahato
                 2.Khadanand Mahato
                 3.Ram Nath Mahato
                 4.Kamlesh Kumar Mahato
                 5.Munai Mahato
                 6.Ganga Ram Mahato                  ....    ..    Opposite Parties
                                            ------
                 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            ------

                 For the Petitioner         :        M/s M.K. Habib, Arun Kumar
                 For the Respondents :               Mr. Birendra Kumar
                                 ------
05/ 24.03.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The case of the first party as stated in the order of the

learned Magistrate is that the well in question is a joint

ownership well. In case of joint ownership properties, revision

under Section 145 Cr.P.C cannot be said to be attracted.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a case

reported in (1994) 3 Crimes 402, (Manisha Devi Vs. Union

of India). Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able

to controvert the position.

In that view of the matter, the orders of both the courts are

set aside and it is held that the proceedings under Section 145

Cr. P.C was not sustainable and they were required to be

dropped. Thus the orders are set aside and the proceedings are

ordered to be dropped.

(Bhagwati Prasad, C.J)

Dey/S.I.