LALA RAM Vs. R R BAINSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgraph. It has arisen thus: One Parshadi had three sons; Lala Ram, the petitioner, Inder whose widow was Murti and the third Budha. Some suggestion has been made that Murti, the widow of Inder, had married Budha. Budha executed a will in favour of Murti with regard to his estate. On his demise, a tug of war started between Lala Ram petitioner on the one side and Murti-respondent on the other. The estate of Budha was mutated in favour of Lala Ram and Smt. Murti in equal shares by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, ignoring the will. On appeal, the Collector mutated the estate in favour of Lala Ram to the exclusion of Smt. Murti. On second appeal, the orders of the officers below were set aside by the Commissioner and the case was remanded for fresh decision. Lala Ram petitioner is now before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, so as to challenge the orders of the Commissioner and the matter is stated to be pending.

(2.) IN the avenue of the Civil Court, Shmt. Murti respondent on 18-121978, filed a suit for injunction seeking restraint against Lala Ram to interfere in her possession. An ex parte status quo was ordered which was confirmed by the Civil Court on 16-3-1979. It has been stated that Shmt. Murti on the other hand created 99 years lease of the disputed property in favour of some lessees. This time, Lala Ram petitioner, filed a civil suit against Shmt. Murti and those lessees seeking permanent injunction and a temporary restraint order so as to preserve his possession. In that suit too, status quo was ordered. Both the suits are stated to be pending.

(3.) THEN came the turn of the avenue of the Criminal Court. The police of Police Station, Chhainsa, on April 17, 1979, reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh, through a usual calendar that a breach of peace pertaining to, the property in dispute was likely to occur and that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. deserved to be initiated. Simultaneous thereto, the police appointed on its own a Sapurdar of the property in dispute on the same date and the S. H. O. of the Police Station assumed Sapurdarship. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh adjourned the case from time to time in a rambling fashion and ultimately on 24th June, 1980, passed a preliminary order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. That was perhaps to justify the existing state of affairs and put a seal of propriety to the assumption of the possession of the SHO-Sapurdar over the property. Lala Ram approached this Court vide Crl. Misc. No. 3144-M of 1980 seeking to quash the preliminary order as also the attachment. A. S. Bains, J. on August 14, 1980, allowed the petition on two grounds: (i) that the casual way in which the proceedings had been conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate revealed that he had failed to perform his duty in accordance with law; and (ii) that the Assistant Sub Inspector (SHO) went beyond his jurisdiction in appointing a Sapurdar (meaning thereby himself ). That power was spelled out to be with the Magistrate and none other. The proceedings were quashed on the view that they were patently an abuse of the process of the Court. However, in the end, it was observed in the said order as follows: However, Smt. Murti, respondent, is at liberty, if she still apprehends danger and the breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner, to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law. 10 days later, on August 24, 1980, Murti Devi respondent filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the same Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh, against Lala Ram petitioner. She claimed therein that she was in exclusive possession of agricultural land and that Lala Ram respondent was wrongly and illegally bent upon forcibly dispossessing her, who was a poor widow. She stated therein that a police calendar was filed under Section 107/151, Cr. P. C. and one under Section 145, Cr. P. C. but in spite of that Lala Ram respondent had threatened to kill her, in case she prevented the respondent from taking forcible possession of the land in dispute. According to her, there was every likelihood of breach of peace and danger to her life and property at the hand of the respondent over the question of the possession of the land in dispute. She made a prayer that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. be initiated and during the pendency thereof, the land in dispute be attached, in order to protect her possession. Significantly, the application remained silent about the course in which the earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr: P. C. had ended in the High Court.