The main legal point established in the judgment is that when parties claim joint possession, no proceedings under sections 145/146 of the Code can be initiated. Additionally, the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not have the power to review and revive proceedings after dropping them.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 28.3.2007 attached as Annexure P.12 vide which learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur has initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) and has also appointed Receiver.

2. The petitioners seek quashing of proceedings under section 145 of the Code on the plea no case for initiation of proceedings is made out from the application made by respondent No. 3 under section 145 of the Code. He referred to Paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the application filed under section 145 of the Code which read as under :-

"2. That the applicant Sarabjit Singh is the duly recorded co-owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3 share in the landed property situated at village Landhra, Tehsil Phillaur, as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-03. The copies of jamabandi are attached herewith.

3. That respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also the co-owners in the above said property, but the respondents are bent upon to create dispute with the applicant through his attorney with regard to the landed property mentioned above. There is every likelihood of the breach of peace between the applicant and the respondents with regard to the possession and use of the property in question. Even the respondents are creating hurdle for the applicant in his regular use of the suit property. The respondents are time and again creating difficulties for the applicant in the use of the suit property. Even the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are bent upon to usurp the total crop benefit out of the suit property illegally and forcibly. The respondents are trying to take undue advantage out of the situation as the applicant is in abroad and the attorney of the applicant has come from a distant village to took after the suit property. Whenever the applicant through his attorney comes to the suit property to watch the interest of the applicant then all the times, all the respondents there create such a situation, which may give rise to the dispute all the times and there is always an apprehension of breach of peace between the applicant and the respondents with regard to the suit property. The applicant himself and through respectable, many times requested the respondents not to create any hurdle in the use and occupation of the suit property by the applicant but all the respondents bent upon to cause harassment and loss to the rights of the applicant. The oral request of the applicant may times turned futile upon the deaf ears of the respondents. Hence there is an imminent danger regarding the breach of peace with regard to the suit property between the applicant and respondent. The applicant, therefore, is to take step being a law abiding citizen that the possession of the total suit property of the applicant and respondents is taken by the Honble Court and benefits and gains of the crop standing in the suit property may kindly be protected either in the hands of this Honble Court or in the hands of the representative of the Honble court."

3. On consideration of a matter learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 10.5.2006 dropped the proceedings initiated on the application made by the respondent.

4. Proceedings under section 145 of the Code have been initiated again by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phillaur on presentation of calendera by the police. The order of attachment which is under challenge was also passed on the proceedings initiated on presentation of calendera.

5. Mr. Vikas Behl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the proceedings under section 145 of the Code as well as the appointment of Receiver and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed for the reasons that it is admitted case of the complainant-respondent No. 2 that they are co-owners of the landing dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is that no proceedi