SARWAN SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only challenge in this Crl. Misc. is - whether the proceedings under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) are properly initiated and whether order passed under section 146(1) is a legal and valid order in the facts and circumstances of the case ?

(2.) SKELETAL facts of the case are that petitioners Swaran Singh and Pritam Kaur have averred that they have purchased the suit land from the attorney of Farj and vide sale deed dated June 23, 1993, and they are in possession of the disputed land. The respondents' case is that they have purchased the suit land from Farj and himself vide registered sale deed dated May 4, 1994, and they are in possession of the disputed land. Both the parties have filed civil suits. The petitioners have filed civil Suit No. 681-I of 1994, which is pending in the court of Mr. M.P. Singh, Sub Judge IInd Class, Ferozepur, against Baldev Singh and Avtar Singh for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, while Baldev Singh has filed civil suit against Farj and others for declaration and permanent injunction. Since both the parties are claiming that they are in possession of the disputed land, Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, submitted Kalendra Annexure P-3 under section 145 of the Code stating that both the parties are claiming ownership and possession of the disputed land. Baldev Singh and Balbir Singh are maintaining that Mehar Singh prepared fictitious power of attorney in favour of Swaran Singh and Pritam Kaur and executed sale deed of the disputed land in their favour, while they have purchased the property from the owner Farj and himself. Both the parties have applied for mutation in their favour. In Baldev Singh's suit status quo order has been passed by the Civil Court. Thus, in the Kalendra it is reiterated that since both the parties are claiming possession over the suit land, there is a dispute about this land because of which there can be apprehension of breach of peace. Hence parties be summoned to decide about the real ownership of the land.

(3.) THE petitioners' learned counsel submitted that it is evident from the Kalendra itself that there is a dispute about the ownership of the disputed land. There is no dispute with regard to the possession of the disputed land. They have purchased the property earlier in point of time. Later if any sale deed is executed by Farj and in favour of the respondents, that will not deprive them of the rights which they have acquired under the sale deed executed by the attorney of Farj and in their favour. According to him, the learned Magistrate fell into an error in passing order under section 146(1) of the Code, when the Civil Court has already passed an order of maintaining status quo.