RAM NIWAS Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that one Manphul Singh father of the petitioners was owner and in possession of the agricultural land measuring 21 Kanals situated in village Rakhi Shahpur, Tehsil Narnaund District Hissar Respondents No. 2 to 5 namely Balwan and his brothers alleged that Manphul Singh sold that land to them vide registered sale deed dated 20-12-1988 for a consideration of Rs. 95,000/- After the alleged sale of land Manphul Singh never returned to his house. The petitioners got suspicious and a case under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at their instance at Police Station, Hansi on 27.12.1988. Manphul Singh had not been traced since then. The petitioners took possession of the land and started cultivating the same as owners being the sons of Manphul Singh. Entry in the Khasra Girdawari was in their names. The respondents who were politically influential persons tried to take possession of the land by force which led the petitioners to file a civil suit. An ex parte order of status quo regarding the property in question was passed in favour of the petitioners on 1.1.1989 which was confirmed on 15.5.1989 with the consent of the respondents. Copy of the order was Annexure P-1.

(2.) ON 5.6.1989, Station House Officer, Police Station Narnaund filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, (Annexure P-2), and the Sub Divisional Magistrate ordered attachment of the property and also appointed Naib Tehsildar Hansi as a receiver to sale possession of the property as per order dated 8.6.1989 Annexure P-3. On consideration of the written statement filed by the parties, an order regarding continuance of the proceedings was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 1989 which is Annexure P 4. . The petitioners filed a Revision Petition against the order Annexure P-4 which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that it was not maintainable, vide order dated 1.8.1989 (Annexure P-5) the petitioners have now filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of orders Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate and Annexure P-5 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated, the petitioners had filed a civil suit, wherein the civil court had directed the parties to maintain. status quo regarding possession by mutal consent of the parties. When the civil court had already taken cognizance of the dispute and had ordered the parties to maintain status quo, proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be ordered and the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate regarding attachment of the land and appointment of receiver amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The respondents were claiming possession on the basis of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in their favour by the father of the petitioners. After the execution of the alleged sale deed Manphul Singh father of the petitioners never returned home and the petitioners were assailing the very execution of the sale deed and passing of consideration to Manphul Singh in a civil court. When the civil court was seized of the matter and its findings were to be final the respondents had no right to take forcible possession of the land.