SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SADHU Ram, petitioner, by means of this petition under Section 432 Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and order dated June 20, 1990 passed by the Executive Magistrate and the police report dated May, 22, 1990.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the land measuring 33 kanals 4 marlas situate at village Gaunspur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The police had reported vide report Annexure P-4 that parties No. 1 (representing Sadhu Ram and Surjit Singh) and No. 2 (representing Bawa Ram) were laying their claim on the land measuring 33 kanals 4 marlas, which belongs to the Provincial Government and the dispute relates to the rights of cultivating this land. That suits had been filed with respect to this land, but the land was being cultivated sometimes by Bawa Ram and sometimes by Sadhu Ram. This land has not been allotted to anyone. Bawa Ram had applied to the Tehsildar, Ludhiana for corrections of Girdawaries and none of the parties had any solid proof of the right to till the land and there was apprehension of breach of peace and as such action be taken. Acting on this report, the learned Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana, passed order dated 8-6-90 Annexure P.S. calling upon the parties to appear before him and file the written statements.

(3.) ANNEXURE P-1 is the decree passed in suit inter-partes which had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Even though the respondent was proceeded ex parte, it will be deemed to be a binding decree against him. Admittedly the appeal preferred by him had been dismissed. The respondent had then brought a suit and obtained an adinterim injunction which was vacated vide order dated September 1, 1988 (Annexure P2). Another suit instituted by the respondent had been dismissed as withdrawn vide Annexure P3. The proved facts on record are thus to the effect that the Annexure P possession of the petitioner was restored to him by the State during the pendency of the civil writ petition and the government had given an. under. taking not to disturb him. Since Bawa Ram had threatened the possession of the petitioner, which necessitated the institution of a suit by the petitioner, which ultimately was decided in his favour and be was held to be in possession of the land and the defendant was restrained from interfering With his possession. In the subsequent suits by the respondent, one was dismissed as withdrawn and in the other the Injunction order was vacated. The plaintiff having been proved to have established his right to possession in a civil decree after this possession had been restored to him by the Provincial Government, the presumption has to be drawn that he continues to be in possession since, thereafter. This presumption has been further fortified with the two subsequent civil proceedings. The criminal court will be bound by these findings of the civil Court. If Bawa Ram is interfering with the possession of the land as noted by the police, the same amounts to an act of trespass. The police should have moved into action against Bawa Ram and the Magistrate could have taken proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. if there was apprehension of breach of peace. His calling upon the petitioner to establish his title or possession again can hardly be justified. At last how many times the petitioner has to prove his lawful possession over the land in dispute. He is not obliged to satisfy each and every forum of his lawful possession ? In this situation, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for taking action under Section 145 Cr. P. C. amounts to abuse of process of the Court.