KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek quashing of order dated 8.4.1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and initiation of proceedings under Section 146 of the Code.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they purchased the land in dispute vide sale deed dated 13.6.1990 and were put in possession of the same by the vendor, namely, Chhinder Kaur, one of the co-sharers. The respondents who had no right to interfere with the possession filed civil suit seeking interim injunction and on being unsuccessful resorted to proceedings under section 145 of the Code in collusion with the authorities. According to the petitioners, once the matter is pending before a civil Court, parallel proceedings under the Code are, in fact, not competent and in anyway liable to be stayed till determination of disputed question of possession by the civil Court. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in case reported as Kartar Singh v. Balbir Singh Malik, SDM and others, 1990(1) RCR 89.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Civil Court being seized of the dispute, proceedings under section 145 of the Code are wholly uncalled for Civil Court is to determine the question of possession. The decision of Civil Court upon such a question is binding upon the criminal Court and so parallel proceedings under section 145 of the Code are not competent. No doubt, this court in Kartar Singh's case (supra) relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case reported as Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and ors., 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 (SC) : 1985(1) CLR 521, held when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, there is hardly any justification for initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. The aforesaid judgments when examined in the light of fact as has been brought on record are not applicable. In the present case, there was no adjudication by a Civil Court when the proceedings had been launched under section 145 of the Code, in the present case, the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants - now the present petitioners from interfering in their possession over the suit land. As per case set up by Amrik Singh and another respondent was that they are in possession of the suit land. The suit land had not been partitioned. The present petitioners, even if they purchased part of land vide sale deed dated 13.6.1990, have no right to interfere with their peaceful possession. The civil Court during the pendency of these proceedings has decided the rival claim set up by the parties vide judgment dated 10.8.1994. It has been held that the sale deed in favour of defendants (petitioners in this petition) is valid only to the extent of 1/6th share. It has been further ordered that the defendants are restrained from dispossessing plaintiff No. 2 from the suit land illegally, forcibly and without due process of law. However, they are at liberty to take possession thereof on the strength of sale deed dated 13.6.1990 by resorting to partition. The appeal against this judgment is pending before the Additional District Judge. The learned Sub Judge vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.1994 has held that the second plaintiff, namely, Dalip Singh s/o Kartar Singh is in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-sharer and his possession is to be protected from defendants No. 1 to 5. Since the parties had been setting up rival claims and there was apprehension of breach of peace the authorities chose to invoke the provisions of Section 145 of the Code till the matter is finally decided by the Court or by a civil Court, receiver was appointed. This court had the occasion to examine as to whether on account of more pendency of civil suit. Criminal proceedings have to be dropped in case reported as Mohinder Singh v. Dilbagh Rai, 1976 PLR 803. The Division Bench after exhaustively examining the various contentions raised by the respective counsel came to the conclusion that when both the parties assert their claim to be in possession and civil Court has directed maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the suit, proceedings under section 145 of the Code are appropriate. It was observed that cases are not unknown in which in spite of injunction issued by a civil Court parties have tried to take forcible possession of the land in disregard to the injunction order. In such like cases, it is in fitness of things that police intervenes suo moto or on a report lodged by a weaker party. This precise point has already been examined by the apex court in case reported as Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. The State and another, 1994(3) Recent Criminal Reports 217 : 1994 Crl L.J. 2117, wherein it has been held as under :-