The confirmation of an injunction order by the Civil Court can influence the quashing of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C., impacting the final decision on ownership disputes.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioners counsel contends that the petitioners are the children of the sister of deceased Karam Singh, who died on August 12, 1984, leaving no other legal heir. The respondents are claiming ownership in the disputed suit-land on the basis of a Will purporting to have been executed by deceased Karam Singh in favour of Chand Singh, Respondent No. 1, on May 19, 1981 when they came to know that the respondents have got their names mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the said Will, they filed a petition for correction of the revenue entries. Their petition was allowed on August 30, 1985. According to them, the suit-land is in their possession. The respondents tried to forcibly dispossess them. Hence the petitioners filed petitions on November 8, 1993, before the S.D.M. and the S.H.O., but no action was taken. Finally on February 22, 1994, they filed a petition, on the basis of which proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated and on March 31,1994, an order under Section 146, Cr.P.C. was passed, disputed land was attached and the Tehsildar, Samana, was appointed Receiver.

2. It is also an admitted fact that on January 13, 1994, respondent No. I filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1994 against the petitioners and on that very day an ad interim injunction order was passed in his favour. It is also admitted at the Bar that respondent No. I has filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Samana, dated September 30, 1993, for correction of entries before the Collector, Patiala, who stayed the operation of the said order.

3. During arguments, Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, counsel for respondent No. 1, placed on record copy of the injunction order passed by the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Samana, in the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 35 of 1994 whereby he has specifically held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit-land prima facie and hence the ex-parte ad interim injunction order passed on January 13, 1994, was confirmed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in his possession of the suit-land.

4. Petitioners learned counsel contended that in compliance of the orders of the S.D.M. dated March 31, 1994, Receiver has already taken possession of the disputed land. He has auctioned the Crops standing thereon. Hence, this point is still in controversy whether Receiver is in possession of the disputed land or respondents are in possession thereof.

5. Respondents learned counsel, relying on Dharampal & Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri & Ors., 1993(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 696 : 1993(1) C.L.R. 402 contended that since the Civil Court has passed an injunction order in respondents favour, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are bound to be vacated. The matter is now pending in the Civil Court, which is competent to determine the rights of the parties with regard to the suit-land. It is also contended that in the aforesaid judgement, the Apex Court has held that expression "determined the rights of the parties" may not necessarily be final but even tentative at the interim stage. It is further held therein that the determination may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent Court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of the subject matter of dispute pending the final decision of the suit. The moment the competent Court does so, even at the interim stage, the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate has to come to an end. It is further made clear that on the passing of the interlocutory order by the Civil Court, it can legitimately be said that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. If there is any breach of this order, it can be punished by the Civil Court according to law.

6. In this case, it is apparent that before proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated by the petitioners, respondent No. 1 had already filed a civil suit on January 13, 1994, alle