HARNEK SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr. P.C.') is directed against the order dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P -6), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure P -5), passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa, was dismissed. It is contended that the impugned order, Annexure P -6, was passed on the wrong premise that the litigation between the parties was pending adjudication. The suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed on 06.04.2004, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The first appeal preferred by the respondent also stood dismissed on 27.01.2005. Against the judgments and decrees of both the Court below, the regular second appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 26.02.2008, by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the SLP preferred by the respondent has been disposed of whereby, the leave was declined by Hon'ble the Apex Court on 24.10.2008.

(2.) THERE is no assistance on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) THE dispute is with regard to the land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas. Vide the impugned order, Annexure P -5, the land in question was attached under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and the Tehsildar, Tapa, was appointed as official receiver thereof. However, the respondents were given liberty to get the proceedings re -opened as and when a final verdict is given by the competent Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, on the ground that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that earlier also, proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. were initiated, which were dropped vide order dated 20.01.2006, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala, and therefore, second proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. were not maintainable. It was further argued that in the wake of proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. there was no requirement to proceed under Section 145 Cr. P.C. as the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. are sufficient deterrent for the parties to refrain from any unlawful act and to avoid breach of peace. However, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by holding that the impugned order was passed finding apprehension of breach of peace between the parties.