HARI RAM Vs. BALWINDER SINGH ALIAS PAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala, dated10th May, 1982, vide which he set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Nabha.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS , under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, were initiated in respect of the house in dispute at the instance of present petitioner Hari Ram. The learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate passed the preliminary order and attached the property in dispute and appointed Shri O.P. Dhaliwal Municipal Commissioner, as receiver of the property in dispute. Dissatisfied by the order of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, party No. 2 i.e. respondents, went in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate.

(3.) I have perused the record. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. He set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on the ground that it is composite order, which could not be passed in view of M/s. Indian Sulp Acid Industries v. Gurjit Singh, petitioner Guru Nanak Construction Co., Amritsar, 1982 P.L.R. 143. This authority was overruled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Nachhattar Singh and ors. v. Gurinder Singh and ors., 1984(1) Recent C.R. 516, wherein it has been observed that a composite order can be passed by the S.D.M. under Sections 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. Other ground given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the civil proceedings are pending on that ground criminal proceedings cannot continue. This view is also erroneous as both the proceedings and independent proceedings and can continue. The Criminal Courts have jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code. The powers under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be exercised even if the civil proceedings are continuing. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that it was not contended in the application that the petitioner was in possession of the house for the last many years. But this finding is against the record as in the application it was clearly stated that Hari Ram petitioner was residing in the house for the last many years and that the respondents about one month back forcibly tried to enter the house and threatened Hari Ram petitioner to go away. The report of the receiver dated 16th January, 1982 also shows that the petitioner was in possession of the house when the receiver visited the house after his appointment.