ASHOK KUMAR VAJPAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer made is for quashing of Kalandra dated 9.1.1995, Annexure P-5, and the subsequent proceedings including order dated 10.1.1995 vide which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kurukshetra, has attached the house in dispute and S.H.O. P.S. Thanesar, has been appointed as Receiver.

(2.) THE dispute is in regard to the property, i.e. five shops in occupation of tenants, i.e. property No. 974, 975, 976, 977 and 978 which partly is in possession of petitioner and partly in possession of respondent No. 3 This property originally belonged to one Moti Lal. On his death, the petitioner staked his claim to the property on the basis of registered Will whereas respondents 3 to 5 staked their claim to the property on the basis of an unregistered Will and also on the basis of inheritance. It is the admitted case of the parties that property Nos. 974 to 978 are in possession of tenants and property No. 979 is partly in possession of petitioner and partly in possession of respondent No. 3. On an application submitted by respondent No. 3, a Kalandra was prepared by the S.H.O. PS Thanesar in which it was stated that petitioner can raise dispute at any time over the property in dispute and as such, the property be attached so that peace may not be disturbed between the parties. On receipt of Kalandra dated 10.1.1995, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kurukshetra, on that very day, after hearing the complainant and on going through the Kalandra, was prima facie satisfied that the property in dispute is a bone of contention between the parties and peace can be disturbed at any time over the possession. He, therefore, proceeded to attach the property under Section 145 Cr.P.C., except the portion in which respondent No. 3 was residing and appointed S.H.O. Thanesar as Receiver. The S.H.O. was directed to take possession of the property forthwith so that possession thereof could be restored to the concerned person.

(3.) IN response to notice of petition, respondents 3 to 5 have filed written statement in which they have stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings in view or apprehension of breach of peace and due to emergency, passed order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. for attachment of house and appointed a Receiver in accordance with law. It has also been stated that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the civil suit can continue simultaneously especially when there is an apprehension of breach of peace. In this regard, counsel for the respondents has cited judgments in Mohinder Singh v. Dilbagh Rai, 1976 P.L.R. 803, Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(1) RCR 320 and Ujjagar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla, 1994(1) RCR 393.