Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Inder Alis Indra
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1996,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 6, 1998
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - SECTION 146 - SECTION 145(5) - SECTION 145(4) - SECTION 145(1) - ORDER DROPPING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 145 - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 145 IN AID OF CIVIL COURT ORDER - ORDER OF INJUNCTION GRANTED BY CIVIL COURT - SUBSEQUENT DISPUTES AND MURDERS - MAGISTRATE'S DISCRETION TO CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 145(5) - RELEVANCE OF CIVIL COURT ORDER - WEIGHT OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO RESPECT CIVIL COURT ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, co-sharers in possession of agricultural lands, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) dropping proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The SDM had initially initiated proceedings under Section 145 and 146 CrPC, attaching the disputed lands and appointing a Receiver, based on a police report indicating a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. However, the SDM subsequently dropped the proceedings, finding inconsistencies between the police report and the statement of the Station House Officer (SHO).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the impugned order dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC was not sustainable. The Court observed that the Magistrate had not provided specific reasons for dropping the proceedings and had not considered the subsequent events, including murders, that had taken place after the Civil Court's injunction order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 CrPC in aid of the Civil Court order granting injunction? 2. Whether the subsequent disputes and murders justified the continuation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC? 3. Whether the Magistrate's discretion to continue proceedings under Section 145 CrPC was properly exercised?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 CrPC in aid of the Civil Court order granting injunction. The Court reasoned that such proceedings were not parallel to the civil proceedings but were intended to add weight of the executive authority to respect the order of the Civil Court. 2. The Court held that the subsequent disputes and murders justified the continuation of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. The Court observed that the Civil Court order granting injunction did not preclude the Magistrate from taking action under Section 145 CrPC, especially in light of the subsequent events indicating a breach of peace. 3. The Court held that the Magistrate's discretion to continue proceedings under Section 145 CrPC was not properly exercised. The Court found that the Magistrate had not provided specific reasons for dropping the proceedings and had not considered the relevant circumstances, including the subsequent events and the order of injunction granted by the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned order dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC and remanded the matter back to the SDM for fresh consideration. The SDM was directed to consider the order of injunction granted by the Civil Court, the subsequent events, and other relevant circumstances, and then decide whether to continue the proceedings and whether to pass an order of attachment.
K.S.Kumaran, J.
1. On 29.1.1996, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Abohar, passed an order under Section 145(1) and Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the private-respondents 3 to 9 herein in respect of the lands in dispute. He observed that from the police report of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Abohar, corroborated by his statement, he was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists between the parties regarding possession of the land in dispute measuring 61 acres (as described in the said order) in the village Dotrianwali. He directed the petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein and some others (as first-party) and the respondents No. 3 to 9 herein (as second-party) to put in their claims/objections/documents regarding the actual possession of the lands in question. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also observed that from the perusal of the report and the statement of the Station House Officer, he found the case as of emergent nature and, therefore, attached the lands in dispute and appointed the Tehsildar Abohar as Receiver to look after the same.
2. But on 22.2.1996 he passed the order impugned in this revision. The learned counsel for the present petitioners filed their claim. He heard the counsel for the parties, went through the records and took note of the fact that Receiver had not taken possession. He recorded the statement of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar and held that the statement and the report were contradictory to each other. He did not find any reason to proceed further with this calandra and held that there was no necessity to proceed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in this case.
3. That is why the petitioners, who were the first-party, have come up on revision. According to the petitioners, they are co-sharers in possession of the agriculture lands measuring about 61 acres, and that the private- respondents 3 to 9 have no concern with this property. They claim that while the 5th-respondent-Indu Bala is the wife of the second-petitioner-Rajinder Kumar, the other respondents are her close relations, and are bent upon grabbing the lands in question unlawfully. The petitioners also claim that the second-petitioner filed a suit before Sub Judge Ist Class, Abohar, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents therein from interfering with his possession and the learned Sub Judge had also passed the ad-interim injunction order on 26.10.1995 vide annexure P1. The petitioners claim that since they apprehended that the respondents may forcibly disturb their possession, the first-petitioner-Inder alias Indra moved an application dated 16.1.1996 before Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Abohar (annexure P-2) who put in a Calandra before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Abohar under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid further breach of peace. According to the petitioners the respondents 3 to 9 being influential persons, the Tehsildar did not take possession of the land attached in pursuance of the orders dated 29.1.1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Abohar, and since the family of the petitioners were involved and arrested in a criminal case, the respondents have taken possession of the lands in question in violation of the injunction order dated 26.10.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Abohar.
4. The petitioners contend that the impugned order is not a speaking order and does not specify as to what was the inconsistency between the report of the Station House Officer and his statement.
5. The private-respondents filed Criminal Misc. No. 16137 of 1997 for placing on record the written statement filed by the private-respondents before the S.D.M. The same was allowed as the revisioner-petitioner had no objection.
6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records. It is not disputed with reference to the very same property, the second petitioner herein filed a suit for perman
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
