Compliance with the requirements of Section 145, Sub Clause (1) of the Cr. P.C and the absence of adjudication regarding possession of the suit property by the Civil Court are crucial in determining the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 24.05.2008 passed by the learned Sub Registrar (Judicial Magistrate), Jammu in File No.26 for having initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C, the petitioners/plaintiffs have chal- lenged the same before this Court through the medium present petition.

2. The dispute relates to the land measuring 15 Marlas, comprising in Khasra No 331-min, situated at Palli Hill, Sector-1, Channi Rama, Jammu. It is alleged that the petitioners/plaintiffs purchased the said property on 24.8.2006 on the basis of an agreement to sell and are continuing to be in possession of the same ever since. On interference in the peaceful possession of the property by respondent 2 & 3, a civil suit came to be filed by them before the Court of Sub Registrar (Khas) Munsiff, Jammu, who passed the order of injunction on 14.5.2008 restraining respondents 2 & 3 from interfering into the peaceful possession of the petitioners in the suit property. The petitioners/plaintiffs also sought implementation of said order through the Police Station concerned.

3. In the meanwhile, on a report being filed by the respondent-State, the trial court vide order dated 24.5.2008 initiated the proceedings under Section

145 Cr.P.C against both the parties. It is this order which is being challenged by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the present revision on the following grounds:-

(A) That no satisfaction has been recorded by the Magistrate before drawing the preliminary order. The said satisfaction has to be recorded from the relevant documents.

(B) That the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C could not have been initiated because there was order of injunction issued by the Civil Court.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for respondents/defen- dants 2 & 3 states that the order passed by the trial court has been appealed against by respondents 2 & 3 herein before the Additional District Judge Jammu. The Appellate Court while disposing of the interim application in the said appeal directed respondents 2 & 3 herein to approach the trial court for vacation of the interim direction passed on 14.5.2008 and till the matter was decided, the parties were directed to maintain status quo on spot. It is further stated that there is no defect in the preliminary order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the preliminary order would reveal that the trial court has enumerated the circumstances relating to the case in hand. It has clearly been stated that the parties were trying to assert their right over the suit property and were trying to dispossess the other party from the said property. In the process firing also took place and a FIR stood already registered against the parties.

7. It is only on the basis of the material produced by the Police Station concerned that the trial court derived its satisfaction regarding existence of the dispute. Following are the necessary factors, which are required to be complied with before preliminary order can be sustained:-

I. A statement that the Magistrate is satisfied as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace.

II. The ground of being so satisfied;

III. The correct description of the property;

IV. A direction requiring the persons involved in the dispute to attend his court within a time to be fixed and put in written statement of their claim in respect of the issue of actual possession; and

V. A further direction to produce all documentary and affidavit evidence on which they rely.

8. Applying the aforesaid facts to the present case, it is apparently clear that the Court below has complied with the requirements of Section 145, Sub Clause (1) of the Cr. P.C.

9. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the preliminary order.

10. Coming to the second question that in the face of order of injunction dated 14.5.2008, proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. could not have been initiated.

11. In this respect it is submitted that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document