Harnek Singh vs Arjun Singh

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The instant petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''the Cr. P.C.'') is directed against the order dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa, was dismissed. It is contended that the impugned order, Annexure P-6, was passed on the wrong premise that the litigation between the parties was pending adjudication. The suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed on 06.04.2004, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The first appeal preferred by the respondent also stood dismissed on 27.01.2005. Against the judgments and decrees of both the Court below, the regular second appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 26.02.2008, by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the SLP preferred by the respondent has been disposed of whereby, the leave was declined by Hon''ble the Apex Court on 24.10.2008.

There is no assistance on behalf of the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

The dispute is with regard to the land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas. Vide the impugned order, Annexure P-5, the land in question was attached u/s 145 Cr. P.C. and the Tehsildar, Tapa, was appointed as official receiver thereof. However, the respondents were given liberty to get the proceedings re-opened as and when a final verdict is given by the competent Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, on the ground that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that earlier also, proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. were initiated, which were dropped vide order dated 20.01.2006, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barnala, and therefore, second proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. were not maintainable. It was further argued that in the wake of proceedings u/s 107 Cr. P.C. there was no requirement to proceed u/s 145 Cr. P.C. as the proceedings u/s 107 Cr. P.C. are sufficient deterrent for the parties to refrain from any unlawful act and to avoid breach of peace. However, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by holding that the impugned order was passed finding apprehension of breach of peace between the parties.

Judgment and decree dated 06.04.2004, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala, proves beyond doubt that Harnek Singh''s suit was decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marl as on the basis of sale deed dated 27.7.1982, and the sale deed dated 17.02.2000 in favour of Arjan Singh is null and void. This judgment and decree dated 06.04.2004 was maintained upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is well settled law that judgments of the civil Court are binding on the criminal Courts. Once Harnek Singh is found to be owner-in-possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas and the defendants Baldev Singh and others were restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff i.e. Harnek Singh in any manner, the pendency of proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. stood terminated in view of the judgments of Civil Court. Once a dispute as to title and possession has been finally decided in favour of the petitioner, Harnek Singh, by the Civil Court, there would no longer be any dispute pertaining to the possession of the land, within the meaning of Sections 145 or 146 Cr. P.C. The Civil Court judgment is binding on all the parties to the suit, including the Police and the Executive. Therefore, the pendency of proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. is an abuse of process of law and are deemed to be dropped with immediate effect.

From the perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that the possession of the land in dispute throughout remained with the petitioner. The civil litigation between the parties finally stand concluded in favour of the petitioner, therefore, it can safely be said that no dispute pertaining to title, ownership or possession is pending between the parties before any forum. Vide impugned order dated 05.04.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa, the Tehsildar was appointed as official receiver, who was ordered to take possession of the land in dispute. If the Tehsildar had taken possession of the land in pursuance of the order dated 05.04.2007, the possession of the land should be immediately restored to the petitioner, Harnek Singh, in pursuance of Civil Court decree dated 06.04.2004. Even if, still there is any apprehension of breach of peace, the police authorities have to proceed according to law to protect the possession of the original owner-in-possession of the land. In view of the above factual position, invoking of proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C., is unwarranted. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed; and impugned orders dated 05.04.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa, (Annexure P-5), and order dated 06.07.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, (Annexure P-6), are, hereby, quashed and the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C. are dropped.