KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated January 21, 1988, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, by which the learned Executive Magistrate, treating the case as of an emergency, attached the property in question and appointed the Station House Officer', Police Station, Makrana, as the Receiver to manage the property.

(2.) SHIV Raj moved and application befor the Station House Officer, Plice Station, Makrana, on January 10, 1988, against Shri Ram, Sukh Ram, Om Parkash, Ram Niwas, Ganga Ram and Ram Karan under Section 107, 116 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application that on January 9, 1988, at about 11. 00 a. m. , non-petitioners No. 1 to 7 took-away the goods of his hotel and forcibly took the possession of the plot in question. As they have illegally taken the possession of the plot and there is a danger to his life; also from these persons, proper action may be taken against them. It was, also, mentioned that the accused-persons have taken-away his two sons, also. Certain other facts were, also, mentioned in that complaint and it was prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C may be initiated and the plot in question may be attached. A complaint under Sections 342 and 447 I. P. C. was also, lodged by SHIV Ram against these accused. The Station House Officer, on January 12, 1985 after necessary investigation, presented a complaint under Section 145 Cr. PC. in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar. On the receipt of this complaint the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate drew a preliminary order on January 12, 1988, and issued notices to both the parties. After receipt of the notice, both the parties appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and presented their case. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated January 21, 1988, treating the case as of emergency, ordered for the attachment of the property and appointed the S. H. O. , Police Station Makrana as the Receiver to manage the property till the matter is finally disposed of regarding the question as to who was the person in possession of the plot in question, It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that a revenue suit with respect to the same property is pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, in which The rights of the parties will be determined. In that revenue suit, a temporary injunction was granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, which was made absolute after hearing both the parties. By that order the learned Sub-Divisional Officer directed Shiv Raj not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in Khasra No. 230/1, 230/1/1 and 230/1/2. He was further restrained from making any construction. He was, also, restrained from doing any business in the two wooden stalls. He was, also, restrained from taking any debris, lying in that plot of land. IT is not disputed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that Shiv Raj filed an application in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of the Receiver and on that application only notices were issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The non-petitioner, on the one hand is taking recourse to the revenue Court for the appointment of the Receiver and when he failed to get the Receiver appointed and the Court merely issued notices in that matter, then he approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by filing a proceeding under Section. 145 Cr. P. C, which cannot be permitted. The parallel proceedings with respect-to the same property and between the same parties cannot be allowed to be continued. When the revenue suit is already pending between the parties and the rights of the parties will be determined by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, with respect to this plot of land and an injunction has already been granted by the Court, these parallel proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. are, therefore, wholly uncalled-for and cannot be allowed to continue. The remedy under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is special remedy ) which is intended to maintain public peace with respect to the dispute relating to the immovable property and these proceedings are not meant for to decide the dispute between the contesting parties or to adjudicate-upon the rights of the parties. When the revenue Court, in the present case, is seized of the \ matter then the respective rights of the parties will be decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, and initiation of the parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such parallel proceedings with respect to the same subject-matter and dispute should not be allowed to continue and should be quashed.