RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C") has been filed for quashing of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. recommended by respondent No. 3 vide Report dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure P -3), order dated 15.11.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure P -2) and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that Ravinder Kumar, respondent No. 4 at whose behest the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have been initiated, is the real brother of the petitioner. Ravinder Kumar submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hisar (in short "SDM") alleging that he and Rakesh Kumar respondent No. 4 have agriculture land measuring 73 Kanals -10 Marlas and both of them have equal share i.e. 36 Kanals 15 Marlas but the respondent wants to grab the share of the petitioner (respondent herein). It is further averred that the respondent stopped the complainant from using the house constructed in the common land, damaging the crops of the complainant and creates problem whenever he goes to the fields for watering etc. It is argued that as the complainant has alleged himself to be joint owner of the land in question and has not claimed his exclusive possession over the land in dispute, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner who is one of the co. owners, are not maintainable. For this purpose, he has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in Kali Ram vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 595, Nahar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2000(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 425 and Ram Karan vs. State of Haryana, 1997(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 591.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, in reply, contends that even if the petitioner has inadvertently raised a plea claiming himself to be owner in possession of the land in question, as a matter fact, the petitioner and respondent are the joint owners in possession of the land in question which is yet to be partitioned amongst co -sharers. He has further reiterated that keeping in view the plea of the respondent himself in the application claiming himself to be joint owner without any plea of exclusive possession, the Magistrate was not competent to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in view of position of law laid down in the judgments cited by him.