JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Calandera dated 3.3.2008 (Annexure P-7) filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa along with order dated 16.4.2008 (Annexure P-8) and all the subsequent proceedings consequent thereto. The petitioner had purchased 3 kanals 3 marlas of land out of khasra No.321/2 vide sale deed dated 18.6.1960 from Bansi Ram. He filed a suit for possession by way of partition against the other share holders and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 26.7.1983. The final decree for partition was passed on 23.9.1986 (Annexure P-1). In execution proceedings possession was delivered to the petitioner. Vide order Annexure P-2 dated 17.10.1987 Executing Court dismissed the execution application as withdrawn as the decree-holder (petitioner) had made a statement that he had got the possession of the land and warrant of possession had also been received back.

(2.) Birbal Dass and others executed a sale deed dated 26.3.2007 qua 3 kanals 3 marlas of land in favour of Bhagwant Singh. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and it was alleged that Bansi Ram had executed a sale deed on 18.7.1960 in favour of Jagjit Singh and others qua 3 kanals 3 marlas of land out of khasra No.321/2. On 5.2.2007, Tej Ram purchased 3 kanals 3 marlas of land from Birbal Dass vide sale deed dated 5.2.2007. The purchasers got executed the sale deed dated 26.3.2007 in favour of Bhagwant Singh. Learned Sub Divisional magistrate, Mansa vide order dated 16.8.2007 in the said proceedings held that since the matter was already pending before the Civil Court and status quo order had already been passed, it would not be fit to initiate proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. Consequently, Calandera was consigned.

(3.) Thereafter, again proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated vide Rapat No.24 dated 3.3.2008. In the said proceedings, the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide impugned order dated 16.4.2008 ordered that there was apprehension of fight between the parties and further held that the property in dispute be attached and Tehsildar, Mansa was appointed as a Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 16.8.2007, had held that since the matter in dispute was already pending before the Civil Court, it would not be proper to initiate proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. However, the proceedings were again ordered to be initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C and vide the impugned order the property in question was ordered to be attached. There was no occasion for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to review his own order. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has submitted that the status quo order had no meaning because the said order did not specify as to which party was in possession of the suit property. The impugned order was a valid order and was liable to be upheld.