JEET SINGH Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) for quashing the proceedings under section 145 of the Code are that one Bachan Singh was the owner of the suit land. After his death, mutation in respect of his land was sanctioned in favour of Sukhvinder Kaur, who is the daughter of his brother, Jeet Singh, on the basis of a will. Gurnam Singh (respondent No. 1 in the present proceedings), his another, brother filed a suit challenging the will. That suit is pending. In that suit, order for maintaining status quo possession over the land in dispute has been passed. Gurnam Singh had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order by which the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Sukhvinder Kaur. He ordered that the proceedings be stayed as the police had instituted proceedings against Gurnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh on one side and Naranjan Singh and Jeet Singh on the other under section 107/51 of the Code. On the basis of Police Calendar, proceedings under section 145 of the Code were instituted in respect of the disputed land. Certain order was passed in those proceedings by the Executive Magistrate. Gurnam Singh challenged that order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, by means of a revision petition. He accepted it and quashed the proceedings. Later on fresh proceedings under section 145 of the Code were instituted. Gurdeep Singh, who was party No. 1 in those proceedings, filed an application under section 146 of the Code for attachment of the disputed land. That application was contested by Jeet Singh and others i.e. party No. 2 and one of the grounds taken was that there was no dispute with respect to the possession. It was also stated that earlier Similar proceedings had been quashed. Party No. 1 contended before the Executive Magistrate that the quashment of the previous proceedings did not operate as res judicata in the case and as cognizance had been taken under section 145 (c) of the Code in the instance case, proceedings should continue. The learned Executive Magistrate agreed with the contention of party No. 1 and ordered that the proceedings under section 145 of the Code should continue as the dispute was with respect to possession. The application filed by party No. 2 was dismissed. Party No. 2 filed revision petition which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. It was dismissed on the ground that impugned order was an interim one. Still not feeling satisfied, party No. 2 has filed the present petition in this Court under section 482 of the Code.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when proceedings under section 145 of the Code was earlier quashed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated Ist February, 1983 (Annexure P.1), fresh proceedings under that provision could not have been instituted. In support of his contention he has cited Munawar Bhat v. Gulla Shah and others, AIR 1967 Jammu and Kashmir 129. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated Ist February, 1983 shows that the proceedings were quashed as it was a case of alleged joint possession. The ground taken by the learned Judge was that as the proceedings had been stayed by Deputy Commissioner, in appellate proceedings the police was not required to launch proceedings under section 145 of the Code. I am of the opinion that the above argument of the learned counsel has no force. In 'Munawar Bhat's case (supra) the previous proceedings were decided on merits. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the earlier proceedings only Gurnam Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur had been arrayed as opposing party out in the present case in addition to those persons there are other persons as opposing parties and, therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent proceedings have been instituted between the same parties. He further argued that in the present proceedings the dispute is with respect to specific Kharra numbers and, therefore, fresh proceedings under section 145 of the Code could be instituted. According to him the present case is not of joint possession. I am of the opinion that when there was fresh apprehension of breach of peace the police could institute proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The previous proceedings were not decided on merits but were dropped on a technical grounds. Now the dispute is with respect to specific Khasras and there is no question of joint possession.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Sardari Lal and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1980 CLR 248 wherein it was remarked :-