Proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. cannot be initiated when a Civil Court has already granted an injunction in favor of one party.

1. In this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C., challenge is to the initiation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. and order under S. 146, Cr. P.C. appointing Tehsildar Samana as Receiver to manage the affairs of the land in dispute.

2. Dispute is in regard to the property of Sakatar Singh. Sarwan Singh, Subegh Singh and Jagir Singh being sons of Kapur Singh were having a joint Khata and Sakatar Singh being a co-sharer, was in possession of land measuring 114 K 15 M. Sakatar Singh was alleged to have been murdered by this brother Jagir Singh and his son Satpal Singh, who are presently facing trial for murder. Dispute arose with regard to possession of land which was in possession of Sakatar Singh, between Sarwan Singh, Subegh Singh, brother of Sakatar Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Parminder Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur, daughters of Ikbal Singh and Jagir Singh and Satpal Singh. A calendera was presented to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate saying that there is apprehension of breach of peace and loss of life and property and proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. may be initiated. On receipt of this calendera, Annexure P. 2, proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. were initiated and vide Annexure, P. 3, Tehsildar, Samana was appointed as Receiver under S. 146, Cr. P.C. Present petition has been filed by Sarwan Singh brother of Sakatar Singh for quashing on the ground that proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. could be initiated only if the dispute was on the question of possession whereas in this case civil Court has found the petitioner in possession and for that matter, on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, it has restrained the other side from interfering in possession of the petitioner except in respect of land measuring 22 K 11 M comprised in Khata No. 18/102 and 4/82. Order dated 15-7-1994 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Samana has been affirmed in appeal and revision against that order has also been dismissed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel has submitted that once the Civil Court has restrained the other side from interfering in their possession, proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. and appointment of Receiver under S. 146, Cr. P.C. are unwarranted. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioners, the dispute is only in regard to possession of land and question of title is not involved. According to the counsel, if the question of title is not involved, then proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. are competent, in support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgements reported in (1) 1994 (3) RCR 217 : (1994 Cri LJ 2117) and (2) 1995 (1) RCR 659.

4. There is no dispute with the proposition as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. cannot be dropped merely on the ground of pendency of civil suit when ownership is not disputed and there is no partition one cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and ask the other to act in accordance with law. In Parkash Chand Sachdeva V/s. State, 1994 (3) RCR 217 : (1994 Cri LJ 2117), it has been held "where the dispute is not on the right to possession but on the question of possession, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under S. 145, Cr. P.C." However, in the present case, the question raised in the suit is right to possession by the brothers of Sakatar Singh. Admittedly, Paramjit Kaur, Parminder Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur, having not born from the loins of Sakatar Singh, are claiming the property of Sakatar Singh being the Pichhlag daughters as their mother had married Sakatar Singh whereas brothers of Sakatar Singh, Sarwan Singh and Subegh Singh have staked their claim over the property of Sakatar Singh on the basis of natural inheritance being the brothers. The question thus raised in the suit is not merely in regard to the question of possession but with regard to right of possession of the property. Trial C