MOHINDER SINGH Vs. DILBAGH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh petitioner, on the one hand, and Dibagh Rai respondent, on the other, are litigating in the Civil Court at Patiala about the possession of a Khola (dilapidated house) situated on the Press Road at Patiala. The Civil Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings about the possession of this khola. The counsel for the parties are agreed that this order is still in force. During the pendency of this suit on 15-111971, the local police made a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patiala, for initiating proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. On this report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a notice to Mohinder Singh and Dilbagh Rai to file their respective claims about the actual possession on the kotha in his Court on 22-11-1971. On 1-2-1972 the police made another report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate requesting him for the attachment of the khola as there was imminent danger of the breach of the peace. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate agreed with the police, attached the khola, i. e. the subject-matter of the dispute and appointed Tahsildar Patiala to manage the Khola till the final decision of the proceedings by that Court.

(2.) MOHINDER Singh petitioner filed revision petition against the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Patiala, dated 12-1972, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has filed the present criminal revision petition.

(3.) AT the time of arguments before me sitting in Single Bench 6 cases decided by this Court were cited. These are Criminal Revision 34 of 1971, Des Raj v. Sat Pal decided on 21-8-1972 : reported in 1973 Cri LJ 1869 (Punj) by P. S. Pattar J. , Criminal Revision No. 33-R of 1973 Kura v. Angrez Singh decided on 30-5-1973' by P. S. Pattar J. , Criminal Misc. No. 262-M of 1975 Teja Singh v. Mohinder Singh decided on 135-1975" by A. D. Koshal J. , Criminal Misc. No. 2046-M of 1974; Pal Singh v. Joginder Singh decided on 8-11-1975 by B. S. Dhillon J. , Criminal Misc. No. 2598-M and No. 2599-M of 1974, Ram Dhari v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal decided on 24-l-1975 by Guraam Singh J. and Criminal Misc. No. 299-M of 1975 Mohd. Ismail v. State of Punjab decided on 8-4-1975 by M. R. Sharma J. The view expressed in all these cases is that when the parties had gone to the Civil Court about the same subject-matter which is in dispute before a Criminal Court and the Civil Court issues injunction in favour of one of the parties or orders the maintenance of status quo nothing remains to be done by the Criminal Courts and that there remains no propriety or even scope for the invoking of the provisions of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in such cases. Stating this principle the learned Judges sitting singly in all these cases quashed the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Magistrate.