BHANO Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have prayed that the order dated 26-4-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 1/1991 whereby it was declared that Babu Singh was entitled to the possession of the disputed property and the receiver of the property was directed to deliver possession to Babu Singh as well as the order dated 8-5-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/1991 be quashed and set aside.

(2.) It appears from the order dated 18-3-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh that the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Sangaria filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, under Sections 107/151/116/(3) and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was stated in the complaint that there was apprehension of breach of peace and there was a dispute between the parties as to the possession of the property. On 20-1-1991, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, attached the disputed property under Section 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and appointed the Tehsildar, Sangaria to be the receiver of the disputed property. Affidavits were filed for proving the possession of Babu Singh within two months before the filing of the complaint. Bhola Singh, who is the son of Smt. Bhano (petitioner) stated in his affidavit that at the instance of his mother, he agreed to sell the disputed property and after obtaining Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money, delivered the possession of the land to Babu Singh. In his report dated 12-3-1991, the Tehsildar, Sangaria reported that the crop in the disputed field was of Babu Singh. In short, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that Babu Singh was in possession of the disputed property within two months of the filing of the complaint and, therefore, he directed that the property in dispute be delivered to Babu Singh.

(3.) Leela Singh filed the revision petition No. 39/1991 against the order dated 26-4-1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, vide order dated 8-5-1991. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that since Babu Singh was in possession of the disputed property on 20-1-1991, the date on which the property was attached under Section 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, was just and proper and did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.