RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Jinda Bai respondent owner of undivided 2035/6824 share in the disputed lands through civil court's decree dated 30th April, 1988 filed before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sirsa, an application for his taking action against the respondents-owners of 4789/6824 share therein, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the respondents named in her application were out to dispossess her forcibly out of her share in the land and there was, therefore, an apprehension of breach of peace inter-parties on that score. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate attached the land, appointed S.H.O. Ding as its receiver vide his impugned order of 28th August, 1989 Annexure Pl.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 17/18 dated 31st August, 1989/12th October, 1989 filed against it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, on 4th November, 1989 vide orders Annexure P5 as incompetent on the ground that impugned order dated 8th August, 1989 was an interlocutory order. Hence Criminal Misc. No. 9438-M of 1989 has been filed in this Court for quashing the two orders dated 28th August, 1989 and 4th November, 1989 Annexure P1 and P5 on the grounds;- (i) that on 30th June, 1989 respondent Smt. Jinda Bai had herself moved the Revenue Agency for partition of her 2035/6824 share out of the entire joint holding measuring 341 Kanals 4 Marlas of the parties to possessory dispute; (ii) that pendency of civil suit inter-parties in the civil court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa filed on 14th June, 1989 wherein civil court concerned had issued status quo order on 17th July, 1989 was not disclosed to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate by respondent Smt. Jinda Bai in her application filed on 30th June, 1989; and (iii) that the disputed land being joint of the petitioner and predecessor in title of respondent Smt. Jinda Bai, learned Divisional Magistrate could not invoke his jurisdiction under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of it. In result it was suggested that the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken against the petitioners (before this Court) at the instance of respondent No. 2 being obviously an abuse of the process of the Court should be quashed.

(3.) IN almost similar circumstances I have already held in Chand Rattan and others v. Sham Rattan and others, 1989(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 679 :-