NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. GURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the satisfaction of the Magistrate with regard to the existence of a dispute likely to cause Breach of peace under Section 145 (1 ). Cri. p. C. 1973. (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') and the further finding that the case is one of emergency under Section 146 (1) of the Code, can be validly recorded in the same composite order is the somewhat significant question which has necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) FOR the adjudication of the aforesaid question, it is unnecessary to advert to the facts in elaborate detail, It : suffices to mention that against a background of protracted civil litigation betwixt the parties, the respondents made an application (annexure P/6) to the Station House Officer of police station Bhadson. on Jan. 20. 1982, for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. The police authorities thereafter made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who passed the impugned order, (annexure P/7), Therein, he found that there existed a serious dispute betwixt the parties over the possession of agricultural land which was likely to spark off a breach of peace at any time. In the concluding para, of the order, he further recorded his satisfaction that the case was one of emergency likely to endanger an immediate, breach of the peace and consequently exercising his powers under Section 146 (1) of the Code, he attached the agricultural land along with the crops standing thereon and appointed shri Balbir Singh, Naib Tehsildar, a; a Receiver thereof.

(3.) THE petitioners herein challenge the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code on a variety of grounds including the one, that the invocation of Section 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code, in the same order was an abuse of the. process of law. This criminal miscellaneous petition first came up before my learned brother D. S. Tewatia. J. sitting singly. Noticing the significance of the question, as also some conflict of precedent, in the view held by this Court as against three other High Courts, the matter was referred for an authoritative decision to a larger Bench.