Darshan Lal vs The State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of Calendar, the SDM Kapurthala initiated the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.PC against Jagjit Lal son of Chuni Lal (respondent No.2). He passed a composite order under Sections 145/146 Cr.PC, attached the land in dispute and appointed the Naib Tehsildar as its receiver, by virtue of order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P1). Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 was accepted and the indicated order of SDM was set aside by the Sessions Judge (revisional Court), by means of impugned order dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P2).

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned order (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the revision petition against the order (Annexure P1) was not maintainable before the revisional Court, so, the impugned order (Annexure P2) is liable to be quashed, lacks merit.

As is evident from the record, that the SDM has passed a composite order initiating the proceedings under sections 145/146 Cr.PC. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any provision/legal position, debarring the Sessions Judge to entertain the revision petition against the main order (Annexure P1) passed under sections 145/146 Cr.PC. As the SDM has decided the rights and liabilities, with regard to the possession of the land in dispute between the parties, therefore, the revision petition against such main order passed u/s 145 Cr.PC was legally maintainable. Thus, the contrary submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.

There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from entirely a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that there had been a lot of civil litigations between the parties, with respect to the possession of the land and the matter was set at rest by the civil Court, wherein Jagjit Lal (respondent No.2) was held to be in possession of the disputed land, duly noticed by the revisional Court.

It is now well settled principle of law that once the civil Court has already decided the question of possession of the land in dispute, then, the SDM did not have the jurisdiction to initiate parallel proceedings u/s 145 Cr.PC. There was absolutely no occasion for him, either to initiate the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.PC or to order the attachment of the land in question u/s 146 Cr.PC. This matter is no more res integra and is well settled.

An identical question arose before the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . Having interpreted the provisions of Section 145 Cr.PC vis-a-vis civil litigation, it was ruled as under:

When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S. 145 of the Code, would not be justified. The 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.

Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by this Court in case Managing Committee Gurdwara Sahib, village Manak Dheri v. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate, Hoshiarpur & others 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 177. The law enumerated in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

Moreover, the revisional Court (Sessions Judge) has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P2) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.