JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of the Kalendra under Section 145, CrPC, and the order, copy An-nexure P6, passed by SDM, Zira, under Sections 145 and 146, CrPC.
2. The proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, were initiated by the SDM, Zira, in pursuance of the Kalendra submitted by the Police under Section 145, CrPC, in respect of the land in dispute. It was alleged in the said Kalendra that both the parties were claiming their possession over the disputed land and that there was apprehension of breach of peace, in view of the said dispute. It had further been prayed in the said Kalendra that a Receiver might also be appointed under Section 146, CrPC. The said Kalendra is dated 31.1.2000. Thereupon, the SDM, Zira, passed the order, copy Annexure P6 (stated to be dated 8.2.2000), directing that both the parties be summoned, White exercising the powers under Section 146, CrPC, the Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver, in respect of the said land, with a direction that he will take possession of the said land, including the crops standing thereon. Aggrieved against the proceedings under Section 145, CrPC as also the orders passed under Section 146, CrPC, appointing the Tehsildar as Receiver, Karam Singh, Jarnail Singh and Piara Singh, the present petitioners, have filed the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing the Katendra and the said order of the SDM, vide which the Receiver was appointed.
3. In the written reply filed by the SDM, it was alleged that the dispute between the parties was regarding the possession of the land and taking into consideration the urgency of the matter, the proceedings under section 146, CrPC, were initiated. It was further alleged that notices were served upon the parties for 18.2.2000 to bring proof of possession. It was further alleged that meanwhile, operation of the order dated 8.2.2000 (Annexure P6) had been stayed by this Court.
4. Earlier, Mr TPS Tung, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. However, subsequently, no one has come present on behalf of respondent No. 3 nor any reply has been filed.
5. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and respondent No. 3, Darbara Singh, are co-sharers in the land in dispute. It has further been submitted that Darbara Singh had already filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the present petitioners, who are defendants in the said suit, from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land and interfering in his peaceful possession. A copy of the plaint dated 25.7.1997 has been attached as Annexure P3.
6. In the present petition, it has been alleged that the said civil suit was still pending and that the civil Court had granted order of status quo.
7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, in my opinion, the present petition must be allowed and the proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, as also under Section 146, CrPC, initiated by the SDM, Zira, on the basis of the Kalendra, copy Annexure P2, and the order Annexure P6, must be set aside.
8. In Labh Singh and another v. Jaswinder Kaur and others, 1992(1) CLR 24, it has been held by this Court that where the land in dispute was jointly owned by the parties, the initiation of proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, the order of attachment of the land under Section 146, CrPC, was liable to be quashed. In the reported case, in the order of status quo was also vacated by the civil Court on the ground that the parties being joint
co-sharers in the land in dispute, the possession of one co-sharer shall be deemed to be that of all the co-sharers. In Baku Singh v. Moti Ram and others, 1992(1) CLR 48, the civil Court was already seized of the matter and had granted interim stay in favour of Babu Ram, plaintiff, restraining the other side from interfering in the possession of the disputed land. Under those circumstances, it was held by this Court that proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, were not maintainable. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, were quashed by this Court. In Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1999(1) CLR 224, the dispute was between the partners of a partnership firm. It was under those circumstances that it was held by this Court that since all the partners were said to be in possession of the partnership property, it could not be possible be proceed under Section 145, CrPC. Resultantly, the proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, and the order of attachment under Section 146, Cr.PC were quashed by this court.
9. In the present case, as referred to above, the parties are co-sharers. The civil Court is already seized of the dispute between the parties, regarding the possession, etc. The order of the status quo has already been passed. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my opinion, the initiation of proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, or the order of appointment of Receiver, under Section 146, CrPC would amount to abuse of the process of Court. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, and the order of appointing Receiver under Section 146, CrPC are hereby quashed.
10. Petition allowed.