OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners seek the quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also order dated 25.11.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ellanabad, District Sirsa, appointing Naib Tehsildar, Ellanabad, as Receiver.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is with regard to property of Jumma Ram. Jumma Ram had four sons namely Om Prakash, Shannu Ram, Nand Kishore and Hari Chand. Shannu Ram and Nand Kishore have died leaving behind Hans Raj and Vipan sons of Shannu Ram and Madhu and Asha daughters of Shannu Ram, and Kusum widow of Nand Kishore, Sanjay and Sumeet sons of Nand Kishore. Likewise, Om Prakash has two sons namely Anil and Rajesh and Hari Chand has two sons namely Amit and Akhil. Kusum widow of Nand Kishore made an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. saying that the elder brother of her husband namely Om Prakash alongwith his sons, Anil and Rajesh, is interfering in her possession and unless proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C are initiated, there shall remain danger of peace. On her application, Kalandara was prepared and the matter was put up before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned who on finding imminent danger to peace, vide order dated 25.11.1994 attached land measuring 369 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Himuankhera, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also appointed Naib Tehsildar, Ellanabad, as Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. In the present petition, initiation of proceedings and order of Sub Divisional Magistrate are sought to be quashed on the ground that while passing the order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate did not apply his mind inasmuch as he did not consider that civil dispute was already pending between the parties in which an order of status-quo had been passed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the petition. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be dropped merely on the ground of pendency of civil suit. Petitioner in the civil suit is seeking declaration that he is in exclusive possession of the land in dispute on the basis of some family settlement, whereas the case of the respondents is that there had been no family settlement and the settlement set up by petitioners is a forged and fictitious document. They have asserted that they have correctly been recorded as owners in joint possession. The Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa, who is seized of the civil suit on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, opined "As regards the prayer of the plaintiff to seek an injunction order against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. I stay my hand at this stage and only direct both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession in respect of the suit land as it exists today." For such like circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. Dilbagh Rai, 1976 P.L.R. 803 has held that Section 145 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial section enacted with the express object of preserving the peace. For the attainment of this object, emergency provision for attaching the subject matter of dispute has been provided in it. Under this section, the criminal Court can only pass a temporary order and the rights of the parties in fact are to be settled by the Civil Courts. In paras 10 and 11 the Division Bench has held thus :-