Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 86
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.
Jangir Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Misc. No. 26865 of 1999,
Decided On : JANUARY 24, 2000
The Sub Divisional Magistrate is bound by the finding of possession made by the Civil Court and must protect the possession of the party found in possession by the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Civil Court Decree - Possession - Quashing of Proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were found to be in possession of certain land by the Civil Court, and the judgment became final. The Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. to which the petitioners objected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot pass any orders contrary to the orders of the Civil Court and must protect the possession of the party found in possession by the Civil Court. The Sub Divisional Magistrate was directed to drop the proceedings in respect of the land mentioned in the Civil Court decree.
Issues: Quashing of proceedings under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
Ratio Decidendi: The Sub Divisional Magistrate is bound by the finding of possession made by the Civil Court and cannot pass orders contrary to the Civil Court decree. The possession found by the Civil Court must be protected.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to drop the proceedings in respect of the land mentioned in the Civil Court decree.
T.H.B.Chalapathi, J.
1. This application is filed to quash the proceedings pending under Sections 145, 146, Cr.P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur. There is no dispute of the fact that by judgment dated 10.4.1995, Civil Court namely Addl. Sr. Sub Judge, Sunam, found the petitioners to be in possession of the suit land namely Jangir Singh in Khasra Nos. 38/16, 25, 39/17/2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 53/1, 2, 6/2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14/1, 6, 54/5/2, 6/2, 63/14/2, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25/1, 26, 64/20 and 341 situated in village Dhandoli Kalan. It is also noticed from the judgment that respondents namely defendants 2 & 3 namely Jaswinder Kaur and Gurpreet Singh are entitled to 67/112 share in the suit land and that the Judgment shall not preclude them from taking possession of their share by moving an application before the revenue Court.
2. When the civil court found the possession of a party, the Executing Magistrate is bound by the said finding in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. He cannot go beyond the Civil Court decree. It may be mentioned at this stage that the civil courts decree has become final. Since in appeal, the judgment of Addl. Sr. Judge, Sunam has been affirmed. In view of the findings that the petitioner has been in possession of Khasra Nos. mentioned above, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate cannot pass any orders under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. contrary to the orders of the Civil Court. He has to protect the possession of the party who has been found in possession by the Civil Court. With regard to the proceedings relating to any other Khasra Nos., it open to the S.D.M. to proceed in respect of those Khasra Nos. under section 145. So far as the above-mentioned Khasra Nos. are concerned, the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot proceed with.
3. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to drop the proceedings in respect of the land comprising in aforementioned khasra Nos. directing the other party to get their land- partitioned by meets and bounds in the revenue court.
