CHARAN SINGH Vs. S D M JALLANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Charan Singh, Resham Singh and Sucha Singh Petitioners arraigned as second party before the trial Court are brothers of Lachhman Singh arraigned as first party. On the application of Lachhman Singh that the disputed land located in the area of village Haripur is jointly owned by him as well as other brothers and that his brother Sucha Singh is not allowing him to cultivate the land/ and that Sucha Singh was cultivating the same forcibly, the police of Police Station, Adampur forwarded report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Civil) for taking action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties over the possession of the disputed land. The sub-divisional Magistrate vide orde dated 1-1-1990 (Annexure P.3) observed that if the land is being cultivated by Sucha Singh then the party concerned could seek his remedy in the proper court of law for getting possession of the property. However, as there was no mention in the revenue record regarding mushtarka khata of the parties the S. H. O. was directed to ascertain the true facts and then submit report in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, the police submitted second report upon which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 23-4-1990 considered the desirability of initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code as the report revealed that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties over the possession of this land. Notices were issued to the parties for 8-5-1990 to put in their written statements in respect of their respective claims. In the meanwhile, on 24-4-1990, the police put in another report for attachment of the land stating that there was immediate apprehension of breach of peace. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then passed order Annexure P. 2 on 4-5-1990 attaching the land in dispute and appointing the Receiver under the provisions of Section 146 of the Code. The second party then went in revision petition against the order passed under Section 146 of the Code which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by holding that no such revision petition was maintainable as the order was interlocutory in nature. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code as well as the order under Section 146 of the Code resulting therefrom.

(2.) The learned counsel for the private respondent at the outset contended that application under Section 482 the Code is not maintainable as the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code clearly bar the filing of revision petition against the interlocutory order. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee, Smt. Chhabi, Mukherjee, (1990) 2 Rec Cri R 337: (1990 Cri LJ 1599). The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, pointed out that the decision of the Apex Court in Amar Nath's case (supra) qua the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was subsequently not approved by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.

(3.) The Apex Court in Madhu Limaye's case (supra) after elaborate discussion regarding the scope of Section 482 of the Code vis-a-vis provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code, in para 8 of the judgment had observed as under:-