HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the calendar (Annexure P2) filed under S. 145 of the Code, the order dated 8-11-1994 (annexure PSI passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pyal as well as subsequent proceedings thereon.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners are grand-sons and respondents No. 2 and 3 are the sons of Dalip Singh. Bakshish Singh, respondent No. 4 is the real brother of Dalip Singh and is issueless. Admittedly, Dalip Singh and Bakshish Singh jointly own agricultural land situated in villages Dhamot and Myani. The dispute between the parties relates to the land owned by Shri Bakshish Singh respondent No. 4 herein.

(3.) According to the petitioners they had purchased the share of Bakshish Singh vide two registered sale deeds dated 10-9-1992 and they are owners and in possession of the said land. They filed a civil suit on 8-4-1993 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining respondents No. 2 to 4 and Dalip Singh from interferring in the possession of the petitioners over the said land. The interim injunction is stated to have granted in their favour by order dated 16-7-1993 (Annexure P1). On 13-12-1993 Station House Officer of the Police Station Pyal apprehending the breach of peace between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents No. 2 to 4 on the other forwarded a calendar under S. 14S of the Code to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pyal. Notice under S. 145(1) of the Code was issued to the parties. The petitioners appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate but as regard the respondents, the report was that they had shifted their transport business at Indore anti the house of Pyra Singh and Karnail Singh was found locked. The petitioners represented before the said Sub Divisional Magistrate that the land in dispute was lying vacant since long and there had not been any dispute which might be the cause of breach of peace. Consequently the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not think it proper to prolong the proceedings and dropped the same by order dated 1-8-1994, (Annexure P. 3).