NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRANJAN Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 29th July, 1,092, Annexure P-1 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala and for quashing the proceedings initiated under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE dispute in this case related to land comprising Khasra No. 109, 110, 111 situated in village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil Patiala. As per case of respondent No. 3 Prem Kumar, the land was owned by predecessor of one Ralla Singh from whom he purchased the same in the year 1978 and took possession. His possession was recorded in the revenue papers. In the year 1988, Nirajan Singh petitioner tried to take forcible possession of the land which led respondent No. 3 to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in his possession. This suit which was instituted on May 29, 1988 was decreed in his favour by Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala vide judgment copy of which was Annexure R. 3/1. In spite of the decree, the petitioner tried to take forcible possession of the land and that resulted into the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE petitioner alleged that Kartar Kaur respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute to him on 7-11-1990 and she received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as earnest money. He took possession of the land and his possession was admitted by respondent No 2. He had also filed a civil suit for specific performance against Kartar Kaur which was pending in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala, and Kartar Kaur had been restrained from alienating the land in dispute. He further alleged that against the decree which was passed in favour of respondent No. 3 he had preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge, Patiala and the appellate court had ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding possession of the land. When civil Court had ordered to maintain status quo regarding possession. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala was not competent to proceed under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had acted beyond his jurisdiction. The impugned order was a non speaking order and it did not show as to how the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied to proceed in the case.