Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26716 (GAU)

MANIRAJ SINGHA v. MANMOHAN SINGHA

Crl.Rev.P./36/2015 · 2025-12-07

Rajesh Mazumdar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010209962015 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./36/2015 MANIRAJ SINGHA S/O LT. HUNA SINGHA VILL- BHAJANTIPUR, P.O. CHINCOORIE P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS MANMOHAN SINGHA S/O LT. MOHIM SINGHA VILL- CHINCOORIE P.O. CHINCOORIE P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788007. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K SINGH, MR.G C PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR.M SINGH, MR.G SINGH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 08.12.2025 1. None appears for the parties. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.06.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 16/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the Page No.# 2/2 Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in Case No. 222M/2000 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was set aside. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the orders passed by the learned ADM, Cachar, Silchar on the grounds that :- 7. The essence of a proceeding u/s. 133 Cr.P.C. is to provide a speedy relief when any public nuisance or obstruction is caused. Such a proceeding cannot be allowed to be continued for more than a decade as it would frustrate the very object of Section 133 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I consider it fit to set aside the impugned order and to direct that the proceeding shall stand terminated. 8. The revision petition stands disposed of. 9. The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. 4. Presently, more than 10 years have passed since the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 5. This criminal revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant