RAM PARTAP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOBODY has given appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. Even the reply has not been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(2.) PRESENT petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of with assistance rendered by the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 3. Petitioner Ram Partap has prayed for the quashment of Calendera filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 10.7.1995, which was filed by SHO, Police Station Ding in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sirsa. Prayer has also been made for the quashment of order dated 14.11.1995 passed by the said Magistrate under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE point for determination in this case is that once the finding of possession is in favour of the petitioner as averred by him, whether under the garb of proceedings under Section 145 read with section 146 Cr.P.C. such posession can be disturbed or not. The second point will be that when there is a dispute regarding the breach of peace only, whether such type of disputes can be converted into proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The answer of this Court is in the negative. In the present case, the injunction order was already in favour of the petitioner. The SHO ought to have respected that order and by resorting the provisions under Section 145 Cr.P.C. he has abused his powers which tantamounts to the abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a citation 1987(1) RCR and has even gone to the extent by urging that in the said case the order passed by the Civil Court was for status quo. This authority may not be very helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioner because status quo order is no order in the eyes of law. By such orders, the Civil Court only directs the parties to keep the things as it was on the date of the passing of the order. Certainly by passing these orders, the Civil Court does not adjudicate the point of possession, however, in the present case respondent No. 2 failed in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On the contrary, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner was allowed giving prima facie finding in his favour that on the date of the institution of the suit he was in possession. There is not an iota of allegations that plaintiff's possession was disturbed on the date of the filing of the Calendera. If respondent No. 2 wants to set its course with the petitioner he could have resorted to his remedies elsewhere but his getting assistance from the SHO was unwarranted and cannot be encouraged.