SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11th May, 1984 Daropati leased out half of the area which is the subject matter of the suit filed by Shanti Devi to Jai Singh. Jai Singh filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly the Code) against Shanti Devi and others on the basis of lease deed executed in his favour by Daropati on 11th May, 1984. The Ilaqa Magistrate, vide order dated 20th September, 1984, took notice of the fact that civil litigation is going on between the parties about the land in dispute and further cases under section 323/325 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 107/151 of the Code are also pending. He, however, opined that as serious quarrel may erupt between the parties about the possession of the land, it will be proper to attach it under Section 146(1) of the Code. The land in dispute was consequently attached under section 146(1) of the Code and Tehsildar, Thanesar was appointed as its receiver. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 20th September, 1984 in the present revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as civil litigation is pending in which the possession of the land in dispute is involved, the Ilaqa Magistrate erred in entertaining the petition under section 145 of the Code of Jai Singh respondent and attaching the land under section 146(1) of the Code. Reliance has been placed on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP and others, AIR 1985 SC 472. The contention of the learned counsel must prevail.

(3.) IT has been held in Ram Sumer Puri's Case (supra) that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, would not be justified. The instant case is clearly covered by the ratio of Ram Sumer Puri's case (supra).