Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Darshan Singh petitioner has, by means of this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. sought the quashing of the calendar dated 2111990, Annexure P1 and the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Samrala dated 1521991, Annexure P2.

The dispute between the parties regarding, Which proceedings, u/s 145 Cr. P. had been initiated by the Police by filing calendar Annexure P1, relates to the land owned by Karam Singh. The parities are brothers and sisters of Karam Singh, who has not been heard of for the last about 3 years. The petitioner claims himself to'' be the owner in cultivating possession of the disputed land, measuring 24 Kanals. On 2951990, he instituted a suit for the issuance of a permanent injunction, restraining respondents 2 to 4 and one Kewal Singh from interfering with his possession. In the plaint he pleaded inter alia that he was in possession of the land on the basis of the agreement dated 1991984 Karam Singh had also executed a registered will in his favour on 6788 Khasra Girdawari, however, stood in the name of Karam Singh. It was Darshan Singh petitioner who was rendering service to Karam Singh, in cultivating his land. On the basis of the civil suit, order of status quo has been passed by the Court. On 2111990. Police Station Machhiwara filed a calendar u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and it had been described that the land was being cultivated by the two brothers of Karam Singh and paddy copy was standing, but the Girdawari is in the name of Karam Singh. There was the possibility of a quarrel and as such, proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. be initiated. It was on the basis of this calendar that the land was attached and Tehsildar, Samrala was appointed as the receiver.

The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Civil Court being seized of the matter regarding possession of the land and it having issued order of status quo, the proceedings u/s 145. Cr.P.C. should not have been initiated and, at any rate, their continuation'' is an abuse of process of the Court. The respondents who were parties to the civil suit, could go to the Civil Court and prove their claim and the property could be protected by the civil court by appointing a receiver if it felt satisfied that there was a case made out for such an appointment.

In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP & Ors., 1985(1) Recent CR 278 their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with a similar proposition, held as under :

"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 parallel criminal proceeding.''s under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding, on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us, Counsel for respondents 25 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that the parellel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of 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 the 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 the 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."

In Gurmail Singh and ors. v. SubDivisional Magistrate, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 238 : 1990(2) CLR 539 , A. P. Chowdhri, J., held that where the dispute regarding possession is already pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and no untoward incident between the parties is reported since after the passing of the order of the Civil Court, attachment of the property in dispute and the appointment of a receiver is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.

In view of the pronouncement by the apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant''s case (supra), the observations made in Mohinder Singh v. Shri Dilbagh Rai, 1976 PLR 803 cannot be held to be good law. It may, however be noted that in the DB authority MR Sharma J., in his separate note had observed that jurisdiction u/s 145, Cr.P.C. should be exercised with, extreme caution if a Civil Court is properly seized of the case

I accept the argument of the learned counsel that since it has not been shown that after the passing of the interim orders of the Civil Court and before the taking of the action u/s 15, Cr.P.C. no untoward incident having taken place and the Police not having taken any step under the provisions of Ss. 107 107/15, Cr.P.C. there was no justification for the criminal Court to have entertained the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

I, thus, hold that continuation of the proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C. is an abuse of process of the process of the Court. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the calendar and all the subsequent proceedings.

Misc. accepted.