IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1371 of 2006
----
Din Dayal Singh ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & another ... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Roy
For the State : APP
----
2- 17.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the First
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr.Revision
No.23/96, whereby he has dismissed the revision application and
affirmed the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Gumla
declaring possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Mr. Roy, in course of argument, submitted that the
document of title and possession produced by the petitioner was
not considered by the Magistrate. The revisional authority in the
order took notice of the impugned order passed by the Magistrate
and held that the Magistrate, after considering the evidence both
oral and documentary, declared possession of the respondent-
opposite party.
The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised by
the High Court in very extraordinary circumstances when the Court
is satisfied that continuance of the proceeding or the order passed
in such proceedings is a misused of the process of court. Section
482 cannot be invoked to scrutinise the evidence and to find out
the correctness of the order passed by the Magistrate with regard
to title and possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the
better course open to the petitioner is to file a suit for declaration
of title and confirmation and/or recovery of possession. The
2
impugned order cannot be quashed in exercise of power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
This application is dismissed. Let it be clarified that the
dismissal of this application or any observation made in the order
will not in any way prejudice the case of the petitioner.
(M.Y. Eqbal, J. )
Pandey