Randeep Singh vs State and another

This is a revision filed by the Petitioner, impugning the order dated 1121995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the

order of the learned Magistrate passed in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been upheld.

The petitioner's case, as can be seen from the pleas taken before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, as also in this Court, may be

summed up thus :

Smt. Shakuntala Wazir was the original owner of the house in dispute, which has allegedly been purchased by Randeep Singh

(RevisionPetitioner) from her. Kapoor Singh, respondent No. 2, in this petition, was occupying its first floor, as her tenant since 1960. However,

respondent No. 2 exhibited a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and his family members and on 791993 he even went to the extent of causing

injuries to the members of the family of the petitioner regarding which a case F.I.R. No. 339 of 1993 was got registered against respondent No. 2

in Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu. Prior to the alleged assault, respondent No. 2, on 2691992, had filed a civil suit against the petitioner and

Smt. Shakuntala Wazir (Original owner of the disputed premises) for prohibitory injunction restraining them from forcibly evicting him from the

disputed premises and in that suit the civil court had directed the concerned parties to maintain status quo till further orders. The petitioner's case

further is that he had never any intention to forcibly evict respondent No. 2 from the said premises and during the pendency of the said suit the

parties had entered into a compromise on 2641995, in terms of which respondent No. 2 had vacated the tenanted premises in favour of the

petitioner, after getting Rs. 50,000/ as consideration and had also agreed not to prosecute his said civil suit and as such the civil suit filed by the

respondent No. 2 was dismissed in default on 1551995, which he never got restored. In view of the aforesaid agreement arrived at between the

parties, the petitioner got the tenanted premises vacated from the respondent No. 2 on 2741995, shifted his luggage and started living there, along

with his family. Petitioner has further pleaded that after having vacated the disputed premises, the respondent No. 2, on being provoked by certain

vested elements tried to create mischief, whereupon the petitioner, on 1281995, filed a Civil Suit in the court of Munsiff, Jammu, for permanent

prohibitory injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from interferring in his possession over the disputed premises. In that suit the learned Munsiff

had issued notice to the respondent No. 2 and had also directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the disputed property. That suit as well as

the order of status quo are still alive.

It was further pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2, on 2391995, also filed a civil suit with regard to the disputed property in the

court of City Judge, Jammu and obtained an order of status quo by intentionally concealing from the court the factum of dismissal in default of his

earlier suit. This suit and the order of status quo passed therein, are also alive till date. The petitioner's case further is that respondent No. 2 along

with one Smt. Subedarni and some ""Gundas"" came to the disputed premises on 3091995 and by extending a threat demanded more money from

the petitioner and on his refusal to oblige them, they went back, only to appear again at the scene after about two hours and unloaded some

household articles of the respondent No. 2, just in front of the disputed premises.

Subsequently, it appears, that on 1101995, respondent No. 2, along with his wife went to Police Station Pacca Danga Jammu and on their

report a case was registered under F.I.R. No. 239 of 1995 for offences under Sections 342/323/458 and 380 R.P.C. on the allegations that on

the intervening night of 30th Sept. and 1st October, 1995, at about 12.30 a.m. Randeep Singh petitioner, along with two persons namely Deep

Singh and Bittu and some unknown had characters (Gundas) came to the disputed premises and caused them in injuries, took over their cash and

ornaments and also kidnapped them.

Annexure P7 attached to the record of the first Revisional Court further reveals that on 2101995. SubInspector Parveen Singh of Police Post

Panjthirthi while on petrol duty, happened to pass through the spot (the disputed premises) and found that there was every likelihood of imminent

breach of peace between the parties and there was also apprehension of the commission of some serious offences, because both the parties were

claiming their respective possession over the disputed premises. In order to avoid any untowards incident the said SubInspector of Police placed

the police guards on duty at the spot and forwarded a report to the Magistrate on 4101995 for initiating proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C.

On receipt of the report of the police, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the concerned SubInspector of Police and on the basis

of the report and the said statement, came to the conclusion that there was every likelihood of apprehension of breach of peace between the

parties at the spot. He accordingly set out to initiate proceedings under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. and passed a preliminary order on 4101995,

issuing notice to the parties to file objections and lead evidence, in the form of Affidavits and documents.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4101995 of the trial court, the petitioner went up in revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge

Jammu on the following grounds :

(1) That the challan itself reflects the orders of civil court taken by the parties and as such the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. are not

maintainable.

(2) That even after some violation of the orders passed by the civil court, it is presumed that the defaulting parties shall be liable for the proceedings

under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and no proceedings can be initiated under Section 145, Cr. P.C. Before invoking provisions under

Section 145, Cr. P.C. its ingredients require to be fulfilled. The overwhelming proof of the possession of the petitioner is revealed in the Police

Challan itself and the proceedings of the Court under Section 145, Cr. P.C. are clear abusive of process of law and jurisdiction of the court in view

of the pendency of the Civil proceedings before the Civil Competent Court.

The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, however, did not find merit in the revision petition and vide impugned judgement, dismissed the

same.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised before me the same contentions as were projected before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge Jammu. In short, the principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the civil suits filed by both the

parties with regard to the disputed property are pending in the civil courts, the action of the Magistrate in initiating proceedings under Section 145,

Cr. P.C. regarding the same subject matter is uncalled for and unwarranted. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the following

judgements :

(1) AIR 1988 SC 1973, (Jhunamal alias Devandas v. State of M.P.);

(2) 1987 JKLR 989, (Paras Ram v. Sitan);

(3) 1995 KLJ 226, (Girdhari Lal v. Remi Bairagi).

However, on going through the relevant record of the two courts below and the judgements cited, before me, I am of the view that this revision

petition has no merit.

No doubt, both the parties are agitating with regard to the premises in dispute in the civil courts. There is also no dispute that in those civil suits,

a direction has been issued by the Civil Court to the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed premises. However, it must not be

forgotten that merely because the civil court had directed the parties to maintain status quo that by itself should not and cannot be a bar for a

Magistrate in initiating proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C.

The fact of the matter is that the adinterim order of status quo in both the suits admittedly was passed exparte. The order of status quo would

not in any way, decide or determine the rights of the parties. In such a situation in case the Magistrate is satisfied on the basis of the material before

him that there is likelihood of imminent breach of peace on the spot, he can legetimately initiate the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. The

approach of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu in passing the impugned judgement does not suffer from any infirmity and is based

on the well settled law on the point, as reported in 1988 Kash LJ 607 : (Om Prakash v. Dharam Chand), wherein it has been observed thus :

The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that by directing the maintenance of statuts quo regarding possession of the subjectmatter in the civil suit,

the Civil Court does not adjudicate either interim or finally on the question of possession and such an order by itself does not take away the

jurisdiction of the criminal court under Section 145, Cr. P.C. to initiate or continue with the proceedings, on being satisfied about the existence of

the grounds for exercising powers under Section 145, Cr. P.C.

In the above background, the revision petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Records be sent back to the courts below forthwith and the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter pending before him expeditiously

and without delay.