The pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code if there is a possibility of a breach of peace.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Sub-District Magistrate, Rajgarh (hereinafter referred to as the SDM for short) wherein the learned SDM had appointed a receiver over a disputed property between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted a complaint at Police Station, Rajgarh and also submitted a complaint before the learned SDM, Rajgarh wherein he claimed that there was a dispute between him and Hari Ram Respondent No. 2, about a plot situated in Mohalla Khadolian about which a civil suit is pending between the parties before the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, the parties have clashed over the plot. In fact, because of the animosity between the families, the petitioners son was killed by those who are family members of the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the illegal occupation of the said plot by the Respondent No. 2 and his family members was allegedly made. Therefore, he prayed that action should be taken under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as the Code for short). Upon the receipt of this complaint, the matter was referred to the SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh, who was directed to investigate into the case. The SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh conducted the preliminary inquiry under Section 145 of the code and submitted his report to the SDM The learned SDM vide order 20.08.2004 was pleased to issue notice to the Respondent No. 2 as well as to appoint the SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh as a receiver over the disputed property. Since the Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2004, he filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh. Vide order dated 24.03.2005 the learned Judge was pleased to quash the order dated 20.08.2004 whereby canceling the appointment of the receiver. Hence, this petition before us.

3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that because of the dispute between two families, the petitioner has already lost his son. The bad blood continues between the two families. The Respondent No. 2 is still trying to illegally occupy the plot. Thus, the apprehension of breach of peace is a bona fide-one. He has further argued that the SDM was pleased to pass an order appointing the SHO only after being satisfied about the possibility of the breach of peace. Lastly, he has contended that mere pendency of a civil suit with regard to the same property in question does not oust of the jurisdiction of the SDM under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, has argued that once the title is disputed before the civil Court and the civil proceedings are pending, there is no reason for appointing a receiver over the property in dispute. According to the police report, it is the Respondent No. 2, who has the possession over the property in dispute. Thus, there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Similarly, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has supported the impugned order.

5. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that mere pendency of the civil suit with regard to the disputed property would not oust the jurisdiction of the SDM to pass an order under Section 145 of the Code. In the case of Ram Pal vs. State of Raj. & Anr., 1989 (1) RLR 954, this Court held, as under:-

The main purpose of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, is to prevent breach of peace concerning any land etc. and the position ought to be examined by him in order to find out whether there is a dispute concerning the property, which is likely to cause breach of peace. If so, the Magistrate has to act under Secti