Kartar Kaur vs State of Punjab and ors.

S.D. Bajaj, J.

One Ram Kishan owned 125 Bighas 12 Biswas of agricultural land in village Baroli, tehsil Rajpura, district Patiala. He had two sons and a daughter. Out of them his son Kartara died in 1972 and the other son Arjan Singh breathed his last on 4th December, 1983. Gurbax Singh and Surja Singh are the collaterals of Arjan Singh. Petitioner No. 1 is daughter of Ram Kishan aforesaid. Petitioners 2 to 7 are her sons from the loins of Ran Singh her husband now deceased. A dispute regarding possessory title over 37 bighas 13 Biswas of agricultural land detailed in Annexure P2 having been occurred between the parties aforesaid, on the basis of calender report prepared by Dera Bassi Police indicating likelyhood of apprehension of the breach of peace learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, attached the disputed land and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Dera Bassi, as Receiver thereof vide his impugned order dated 16th October, 1986. Revision filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, failed on 10th October, 1987. Criminal Misc. 6366M of 1986 filed in this Court also failed.

Smt. Kartar Kaur and her six sons have again approached this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 6938M of 1987 for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. Rajpura, and Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on the ground of pendency of their civil suit No. 85 filed on 11th March, 1987 between the parties in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Rajpura, wherein the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding their possession over the land in suit.

I have heard Shri D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Ramanjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and Shri R.K. Battas, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3 and have carefully gone through the material on record.

With reference to the observations made in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 278 (SC) : 1985(2) RCR(Crl.) 43 (SC) : AIR 1985 Supreme Court 472 and Jhummamal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 428 , it has been urged that parallel proceedings in criminal court should be stopped. The argument is wholly without merit. The crux of the Supreme Court decision is the pendency of civil litigation wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated. In the present case civil suit No. 85 was filed by the petitioners on 1131987 after remaining unsuccessful in getting criminal proceedings against themselves stayed/quashed right upto this Court. In similar circumstances Supreme Court itself observed. "We fail to understand how the High Court in this case, took advantage of the decision of this Court in Ram Sumer case. The ratio of the said decision is that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter. That does not mean that a concluded order under Section, 145 Cr.P.C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil court. An order made under Section 145 Cr.P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil court. He may move the civil court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to. possession. The civil court. has jurisdiction to give finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached".

Jagdish alias Jagdish Kumar v. S.D.M. and others, 1978(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 487; Ram Pal v. Harish Chand and another, 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 65 (P&H) : 1987(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 133 and Kalu Singh and others v. Harish Kumar and others, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 414 are all the three authorities of our own High Court for the view, "In such cases involving the disputes of possession in my view, three types of orders can be envisaged to be passed by the civil Courts : (i) the appointment of receiver to manage the properties in dispute ; (ii) the restraining of one of the parties from interfering with the possession of the other party during the pendency of the suit, about which the civil Court prima facie feels satisfied; and (iii) the maintenance of status quo about the possession of the property during the pendency of the case. The third type of cases, that is, maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the civil suit is a situation in which a civil Court does not prima facie feel, satisfied about any party being in possession of the subjectmatter of the suit. In such cases when both parties claim possession, dangerous situation can develop with the anxiety of both or any one of them to get into actual possession. If the situation deteriorates then the police or the Magistrate cannot act as silent spectators to witness the breach of the peace; if they act in such circumstances and the Magistrate attaches the subject matter of the dispute under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, then he would be acting to defend the maintenance of the status quo as ordered by the civil court.

The present case falls under the third type of cases. Here maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the civil suit has been ordered because the Court is not prima facie satisfied about any party being in possession of the land in dispute. In this situation if the Magistrate, from the police report, is satisfied that there is likelihood of breach of the peace, he is competent to proceed under sections 145 and 146 of the Code. Thus, according to the law laid down by the Division Bench in Mohinder Singh''s case (supra), the impugned proceedings under sections 145 and 146 taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Panipat, cannot be quashed simply because of the pendency of a civil suit filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 regarding the same land.

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6938M of 1987 is thus rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed. The parties shall, however, abide by the final decision of the civil Court in regard to their possession over the land in dispute.