GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURNAM Singh and others have come up to this Court in this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr., PC for quashing of First Information Report No. 67 dated 4-10-1989, for offences under Sections 447/34, IPC, registered at Police Station Nathana and all the consequent proceedings.

(2.) THE impugned FIR has been registered on the basis of an application moved by Ranjit Singh to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. He had alleged that he owned 5-1/2 acres of land at village Nathana, since the year 1968. In proceedings, in the court of the Assistant Collector I Grade, Bathinda Balwant Singh a co-sharer abdicated his rights in that land and agreed to have his share adjusted in village Mehraj, Patti Kala. After the death of Balwant Singh, his sons Swaranjeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh of village Saholi, Distt. Ludhiana, started selling their shares in the land in village Nathana and Mehraj, Patti Kala to which he objected, and filed a civil suit and obtained a status quo order on 15-4-88. Swaranjeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh appointed Atma Singh as their attorney, who, along with his sons, Gurnam Singh. Harbans Singh and Beant Singh tried to sell the land and take forcible possession. He reported the matter to DSP, Phul, who directed the application to be forwarded to the SHO of the Police Station concerned for necessary action and report. When he appeared before the SHO, the latter not even caring to see the application, detained him, along with Harinder Singh and Jasbir Singh, and allowed the other party to take forcible possession of the land. The petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned FIR, on the basis of civil litigation which was pending between the parties and that the decision of the Civil Court would be binding and that no offence is shown to be made against them. It the Civil Court holds that the petitioners arc owners in possession, there will be no question of their trespassing of the land.

(3.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the application moved to the Deputy Commissioner by Ranjit Singh, he had given the history of his being in possession of the land since the year 1968 after the death of his father and also the compromise before the Assistant Collector I Grade before whom it had been agreed by the co-sharers to abdicate their rights in the laud in dispute. He had further urged that they had filed a suit in the Civil Court that their possession was threatened and the heirs of Balwant Singh tried to alienate the land. He had approached the DSP, Phul to complain about apprehension of interference in his possession and in that connection, he appeared before the SHO, alongwith the application which had been marked to him by the DSP. He was then detained by the Police and the Police facilitated the other party to enter into possession of the land. The criminal act complained of, thus, took place pending the civil suit in the Court. To that extent, the matter pending before the Civil Court and the Criminal Court cannot be described to be the same. It is a different matter that the dispute about possession was sub-judice before Civil Court. In given circumstances both the civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously and as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff's case (supra) as between civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal matter should be given precedence. The learned Magistrate, while deciding the application of the petitioners, had rightly followed the dictum of the apex Court and also found no justification to order the stay of criminal proceedings. There is no force in the criminal miscellaneous and the same is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.