1989 Supreme(Raj) 921
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohini Kapur, J.
Ram Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Cri. Misc Petition No 768 of 1989.
Decided On : 21-11-1989
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.L. Sharma, Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocates.
For the Non-petitioner No. 2:Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. O. P. Sharma, P.P.
The pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate must consider the likelihood of breach of peace and the existence of a dispute concerning the property.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - PENDENCY OF CIVIL SUIT - JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURT - POWER TO ATTACH PROPERTY - MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO - INTERIM ORDER BY CIVIL COURT - REVISION BY SESSIONS JUDGE - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over agricultural land between petitioner and non-petitioner. Petitioner claimed exclusive possession after an agreement for sale in his favor. Non-petitioner claimed possession based on a subsequent agreement. Civil suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the petitioner. Application for temporary injunction pending. SDM attached the property and appointed a receiver under Section 145 Cr.P.C. due to the likelihood of breach of peace. Sessions Judge set aside the SDM's order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., holding that parallel proceedings in civil and criminal courts were undesirable.
Finding of the Court:
The pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate must consider the likelihood of breach of peace and the existence of a dispute concerning the property. The Magistrate's finding on these matters should not be lightly interfered with by the Sessions Judge. However, the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely while the dispute is pending in the civil court. The parties should be directed to approach the civil court for an interim order within a specified period, after which the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. may be dropped.
Issues: 1. Whether the pendency of a civil suit bars proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the Magistrate's finding on the likelihood of breach of peace and the existence of a dispute should be interfered with by the Sessions Judge? 3. Whether criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can continue indefinitely while the dispute is pending in the civil court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The pendency of a civil suit does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate must consider the likelihood of breach of peace and the existence of a dispute concerning the property. 2. The Magistrate's finding on these matters should not be lightly interfered with by the Sessions Judge. 3. Criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely while the dispute is pending in the civil court. The parties should be directed to approach the civil court for an interim order within a specified period, after which the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. may be dropped.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Sessions Judge dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was set aside. However, the parties were directed to maintain status quo for three months, and the SDM's order appointing a receiver was stayed. The Additional District Judge was directed to decide the application for temporary injunction as early as possible.
JUDGMENT
1. 1. The dispute in this, case relates to agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 64512 measuring 18 Biswas. This land is situated in Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. The petitioner Ram Pal and one Dinesh Kumar purchased this land in an auction in the year 1980. Sale certificate was issued jointly in the names of the petitioner Rant Pal and Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter Dinesh Kumar executed an agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner on 18th Feb, 1981 for a specified sum. This agreement included other lands also, besides the share of Dinesh Kumar in Khasra No. 645/2. The petitioner claimed that he was in exclusive possession of this land after the agreement in his favour.
2. It appears that subsequently Dinesh Kumar entered into another agreement with the non-petitioner No. 2 Amarjeet Singh for the sale of the disputed land on 16th Nov., 1981.
3. The petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the contract on 22nd Sept., 1982. He moved an application playing that Dinesh Kumar be restrained from selling or transferring the disputed land to any one else, but this application was dismissed on 20th October, 1983, as Dinesh Kumar had taken a plea that land had already been sold. However the registered sale deed in favour of Amar Jeet Singh was executed sometime in 1984. Amarjeet Singh was made a party to the civil suit on 3rd October, 1987.
4. The petitioner had moved a second application for grant of temporary injunction on 10th Jan, 1986 praying that his possession over the property should riot he disturbed, and this application is pending before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and so far no order has been passed on it by the Additional District Judge.
5. Both the parties, namely, the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2 made reports at the Police Station Phulera and upon this the SHO made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambher on 28th Feb, 1986. On the sauce day the SDM passed an order under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The allegation of the petitioner was that the non-petitioner No. 2 bad cut and removed about 400 Babool trees standing in this land and that he wanted to take possession over the land. Amarjeet Singh had made a report that he had purchased Khasra No. 645/2 and other lands from Dinesh Kumar, but Ram Pal the prevent petitioner was making attempts to take possession over the land. The learned SDM drew up a statement of the case and considering the fact that the case was one of emergency and there was apprehension of breach of peace, the property was attached and Tehsildar Sambher was appointed as receiver over the same. Ram Pal was made party No. I and Amarjeet Singh was made party No. 2.
6. Amarjeet preferred a revision against the order of the SDM, Sambher and this was disposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on 17th July, 1989 The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. (1985 Cr. L.J. 752) . held that it was not desirable that a parallel proceeding should remain pending before a Civil Court as well as a Criminal Court. Considering that the dispute was between the same parties about the same land and that had been pending in a civil suit, proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. could not be taken. Hence the order passed by the SDM Sambher was set aside.
7. Against this order the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Khasra No. 645,2 has never been partitioned and he was cultivating the whole of the land without any division of holding. The land was purchased jointly with Dinesh Kumar but he executed an agreement for sale on 18th Feb, 1981 and thereafter he was not in possession of this field. In view of this he has claimed exclusive possession. It has been contended that the decision in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (1) cannot be said to be applicable to
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
