High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanga Masih & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 16 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanga Masih & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 16 October, 2008
Criminal Misc.-M No.2754 of 2008 (O&M)                           :1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 16, 2008

Sanga Masih & another

                                                             .....Petitioners

                           VERSUS



State of Punjab & others

                                                               ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:            Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Advocate,
                    for the petitioners.

                    Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
                    for the State.

                    Mr.Ravi Malhotra, Advocate,
                    for respondent Nos.2 to 8.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 29.11.2007

passed by Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court and order dated 14.11.2006 passed by Sub Divisional

Magistrate, whereby he has dropped the proceedings under Section

145 Cr.P.C.

Criminal Misc.-M No.2754 of 2008 (O&M) :2:

A Calendra was presented by SI/SHO, Police Station,

Purana Shalla, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur stating that a dispute

exists between the parties to the petition over the possession of land

measuring 371 kanals 5 marlas comprised in khasra numbers

mentioned in the impugned order. After receipt of the Calendra and

recording the statement of SHO, Naib-Tehsildar, Gurdaspur was

appointed as a Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. for looking after

the land in dispute till the final decision of the case by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Parties filed their respective

proceedings before the Magistrate. The matter in regard to mutation

on the basis of sale deeds also reached before this court, but the

Civil Writ Petition filed by party No.2 was dismissed. No stay was

granted to Manga Masih in a suit filed by him for permanent

injunction. In this background, it was found that possession of party

No.1 was old and continuous and, therefore, it was required to be put

in possession on the conclusion of the proceedings. Reference has

also been made to the order passed by this Court in Criminal

Misc.No.41640-M of 2000, wherein it was held that the proceedings

under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. will be concluded within three

months and any order passed in the said proceedings will be subject

to the orders which may be passed by the civil court since the suit

already pending in the civil court. It was further directed that the

petitioners will also be entitled to contend that the proceedings itself

are not maintainable in view of pending civil suit, which contention

will be examined in accordance with law. It is in this background and

after considering the pleas of counsel for the respective parties, the
Criminal Misc.-M No.2754 of 2008 (O&M) :3:

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurdapur has dropped the proceedings

under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with direction that the possession of the

property be handed over to party No.1 Gurdial Singh and others.

Reference has also been made to the findings recorded in a civil suit

titled Manga Masih v. Gurdial Singh and Ranjit Kaur, wherein it is

held that the plaintiffs have themselves alleged to be owners in

possession of the land on the basis of a Will executed in their favour

by Tirath Ram and the mutation Nos.303 and 312, which were

sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in their favour, but they have not

placed on record the copy of the Will, on the basis of which they

claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute. No witnesses

have been examined to prove the execution of the Will. It is also

noticed that the mutation sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in their

favour has already been set aside. Notice has also been taken of the

fact that no injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and

their suit has been dismissed. The submission by the counsel for the

petitioner that this would not show Gurdial Singh to be in possession

for the Magistrate to hand over possession to him is not justified.

Since the possession in this case was taken and the

Receiver appointed, the same has to be handed over to a party

entitled to the possession on the basis of a civil suit that has been

decided. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was also to comply with the

directions of this court to decide the same on the basis of the

decision in the civil suits and he accordingly has rightly concluded

that the proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. have to be

dropped and the possession on the basis of various judgments and
Criminal Misc.-M No.2754 of 2008 (O&M) :4:

decrees of the civil courts is required to be handed over to Gurdail

Singh, party No.1.

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order,

especially so when the same was challenged in a revision filed

before Addl.District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurdaspur. It has

rightly been observed by the Addl.Sessions Judge that it is a settled

proposition of law that once the dispute with regard to possession is

pending and decided by the civil court, the proceedings under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. It has accordingly been

observed that in view of the order passed by the civil court, it would

not be appropriate to initiate any proceedings under Section 145

Cr.P.C. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

October 16, 2008                        ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh                                       JUDGE