Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This Revision Petition has been filed against the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1993 dated February 4, 1994.

Proceedings were initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Officer Incharge of Police Station, City Batala, in the Court of SubDivisional Magistrate, Batala, against one Balwant Singh, party No. 1 and Jaswant Singh, party No. 2 as to dispute in regard to some property comprising of one Dhaba. The petitioner in this Revision Petition filed an application before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Batala, for dropping the proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, as he had already filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, First Class Batala, on April, 8, 1993 and also obtained an interim order directing the parties to maintain statusquo. The First party Balwant Singh filed a reply that he was in possession of the disputed property and that possession was taken from him by the police and, therefore, he is entitled to take back the property from the police. The SubDivisional Magistrate by his orders dated May 19, 1993, directed the police to deliver the property to Balwant Singh and further observed that it will be determined during the enquiry under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, after taking evidence of the person who is in possession of the property and after such determination, the possession of the property will be given to that person.

Aggrieved by the same, Jaswant Singh filed a revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, who held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and, as such, directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry, according to law under sections 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, by attachment and appointment of a receiver and the attachment has to be continued till the rights of the parties are determined by the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction.

Aggrieved by the said order, party No. 1 preferred the above Revision Petition.

After going through the orders of the SubDivisional Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, I am of the opinion that the orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the respondent Jaswant Singh who had filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Batala, has also admitted that the Civil Court passed an order to maintain Statusquo. Thus, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass such order and it is futile exercise to have a parallel enquiry under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Civil Court observed in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1985 SC 472 :

"That when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is the one before us. Counsel or respondents 25 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the Criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed.

Therefore, I am of the opinion of that the proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be continued any further when the matter is seized of by the Civil Court. However, by the order of the SubDivisional Magistrate the possession of the keys of Dhaba was given to the petitioner. This happened in May, 1993, i.e. more than twenty months back. The possession of the property by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the SubDivisional Magistrate is always subject to the final orders to be passed by the Civil Court. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also the SubDivisional Magistrate and quash

the proceedings before the SubDivisional Magistrate and direct the parties to approach the Sub Judge First Class, Batala, for obtaining necessary orders.

Statusquo is directed to continue till the Sub Judge passes appropriate orders on the application pending before him in the suit filed by Jaswant Singh. Sub Judge First Class, Batala, is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. The application filed by Jaswant Singh against Inder Singh and others be decided within three months from the date of receipt and this order and copy of this order is directed to be communicated to Sub Judge First Class, Batala, within a week. The parties are directed to appear before Sub Judge Fist Class, Batala, on February 20, 1995.

JUDGMENT accordingly.