JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned order placing the land in dispute under attachment during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sangrur, is sought to be quashed. Of course, in this petition, it has been alleged that in view of civil litigation and ad interim stay passed by the civil Court, initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is not warranted by law. But in this petition, no prayer has been made to seek quashing of notice under Section 145 (1) of the Code.

(2.) WHILE opening arguments, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh has stated that issuance of notice under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and resultant proceedings Under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are revisable against which he did not file any revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, He made it clear that his client had filed a revision before the Court below only against the attachment order dated 20-6-1990 passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. annexed as Annexure P1 with this petition. That revision was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29-10-1990 (Annexure R-6) being incompetent as an order of attachment under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and redressal against the same can only be obtained under Section 482, Cr. P. C. before this Court. In view of these submissions Mr. Ajay Pal Singh has very fairly confined his arguments to the legality and vires of the attachment order in question under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. In view of this, now I would be dealing only with the legality and impropriety of the impugned order of attachment (Annexure P1) dated 20-6-1990 passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE land in dispute measures 23 Kanals 2 Marias situated in village Sheron, tehsil and District Sangrur. It has been alleged in the petition that one Hardev Singh was the owner of the property in dispute and he had monetary dealings with the petitioner so much so that petitioner gave a loan of Rs. 50. 000/- or so to said Hardev Singh and said Hardev Singh in lieu thereof gave possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner. Due to non-return of the loan, petitioner had to file a civil suit on 4-2-1989 when he apprehended that said Hardev Singh was contemplating to alienate the land in question. Petitioner also obtained stay order dated 4-2-1989 (Annexure P2) vide which the civil Court restrained said Hardev Singh from alienating the land. It seems that after the initiation of the said suit, said Hardev Singh sold the property in dispute to the respondents vide registered sale-deed dated 22-2-1990 (Ann. R1 ). Feeling aggrieved from the execution of the sale-deed, the petitioner filed a civil suit on 7-3-1990 to the effect that the said sale-deed dated 22-2-1990 in favour of Joginder Singh son of Shamsher Singh is illegal, void without consideration and has been manipulated to defeat the right of the plaintiff to recover the debt amount. Further, injunction was sought in the suit that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the property in dispute and the defendants in the suit be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute forcibly. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was also filed and on the said application, the trial Court passed an order dated 7-3-1990 to the effect that "the defendants are restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till further order. "on notice of said application, the defendants in the suit i. e. Juginder Singh s/o Shamsher Singh (respondent) and Hardev Singh appeared in the Court and contested the suit as well as the issuance of injunction order as narrated above. During the pendency of the suit proceedings involving rival contentions of the parties as to who is in possession of the property in dispute, the 1d. Sub Judge passed an order dated 2-2-1991 (Ann. R2) modifying the previous order dated 7-3-1990, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property. This order of modification was passed as the counsel for the parties had no objection for the said modification. The resultant effect is that on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo till the final decision of the civil suit.