SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, C.J.I. and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C ) No. 3793 of 2000). D/d. 12.3.2001.

Ugrasena Sahu and others - Appellants

Versus

Khutulu Sahu - Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 482 and 145 - Inherent powers of quashing of proceedings under Section 145 - Proceedings under Section 145 disposed of without any finding that there has been no due service of notice even after expiry of 11 years - Order passed by the Magistrate qua possession recorded in favour of appellants - Such a finding can be challenged by filing civil suit - Inherent powers exercised for interfering with such an order declaring the possession otherwise held not proper.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the High Court of Orissa in a Criminal Revision, on an application being filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

3. On the basis of the materials produced, the Magistrate disposed of the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 holding that the appellants were in possession of the disputed land on the date of issuance of the preliminary order under sub-section (1) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Against the said order an application was filed to the Revisional Court but the Revision itself was dismissed and the order of the Magistrate holding the possession of the land in favour of the appellants was affirmed. This order was assailed in the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The High Court by the impugned order, being of the opinion that the present respondent had not been given opportunity of filing his written statement and adduce evidence in support of his case, set aside the impugned direction and remitted the matter. It is against this order, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is required to be exercised sparingly and in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 where there is no finding that there has been no due service of notice after expiry of 11 years, it was not appropriate for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and interfere with the order of the Magistrate, particularly when the remedy lies by filing a civil suit for necessary relief. We find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. In our view, the High Court erred in law in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in interfering with the order of the Magistrate declaring possession in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 We accordingly quash the impugned order of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Magistrate stands affirmed.

Appeal allowed.