BABU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of order Annexure P-1 dated 5-9-1988 passed by Executive Magistrate, Gidderbaha, under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order Annexure P-2 dated 10th October, 1990 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dismissing revision there against by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this petition are : One Bhag Singh died leaving behind inter alia, 19 kanals 13 marlas of land. He was survived by three sons, namely, Babu Singh petitioner, Darshan Singh and Sarup Singh respondents No. 2 and 4, besides 3 daughters. Darshan Singh respondent No 2 had been serving as Inspector, Cooperative Societies for about 15 years and Sarup Singh was Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police for the last 20-25 years. The person who was thus stated to be in actual physical possession was the third son of Bhag Singh, namely, Babu Singh. The case of Babu Singh is that Bhag Singh died intestate. Sarup Singh and Darshan Singh, however propounded a will left by their father bequeathing the aforesaid land in favour of his three sons including the petitioner in equal shares. Babu Singh instituted a civil suit against Darshan Singh and Sarup Singh and on 2-6-1988, the Senior Subordinate Judge, Faridkot granted a temporary injunction in the suit restraining Darshan Singh and Sarup Singh from interfering in the possession of 15 kanals 9 marlas of land out of the land left by Bhag Singh. According to the petitioner, the defendants in the suit put in appearance on (10-8-88. It was against this background that Darshan Singh and Sarup Singh made application under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Executive Magistrate on 5th August, 1988. The Executive Magistrate by order Annexure P-2 directed notice to be issued to Babu Singh for 13-9-1988 requiring the parties to appear before him and to put in written statement of their respective claims with regard to the actual possession of the land. The Executive Magistrate further stated that he considered the case to be one of emergency and therefore, attached the land in dispute and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Lambi, as the Receiver. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Babu Singh preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 20th October, 1990 on the ground that the order under Section 146 was an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable there against. This is how the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Executive Magistrate recorded the requisite satisfaction that there was apprehension of breach of peace and he, therefore, attached the land and appointed a Receiver. He further pointed out that in pursuance of the order, the Naib Tehsildar actually took possession of the land on 12-91988. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit of Babu Singh was dismissed as withdrawn on 5-11-1988.