SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the judgment dated 15.01.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhulath, whereby request for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was declined, has been set aside and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 appeared, filed reply and contested the petition. However, none appeared on behalf of proforma respondents No.3 and 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that Calendera under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been presented before learned SDM, Bhulath, on the basis of application filed by Jit Kaur. As per the application, Jit Kaur is daughter of late Bhag Singh. As per the Calendera, the share of Jit Kaur was got transferred by her brothers in the year 1982 in their own names. When objection was raised, they started giving her share in cash from the crop but now they refused and they have started cultivating the land of the share of Jit Kaur. Learned SDM, Bhulath after discussing these facts found that the civil suit is already pending before the civil Court and status quo order has already been granted by the civil Court. Hence, no need was felt to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C and same were dropped and application was declined. In the revision petition, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, without discussing these facts that the proceedings are going on before the civil Court and the status quo order has been passed, set aside the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by learned SDM, Bhulath by stating that as per provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory for a Magistrate to receive all such evidence as may be produced by the parties. From the record, I find that firstly it is clear that Jit Kaur, who filed the application is alleging that the sale deeds executed in the year 1982 by her brothers are void. This fact regarding title is to be decided by the civil Court. Moreover, from the Calendera itself, it is clear that the brothers of Jit Kaur and their legal heirs are in possession of the suit land. She has stated that earlier they were giving her share from the crops and now they have refused.