The central legal point established is that proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be initiated when a civil suit is pending and the property is in joint ownership.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner Sudershan Singh for quashing of the Calendra dated 15.4.1999 (Annexure P-4), orders dated 15.4.1999 (Annexure P-6) and 20.4.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively.

2. In this case, the petitioner-Sudershan Singh and respondent-Roshan Singh are the real brothers. They were joint owners in possession of the land measuring 237 kanals 3 marlas. In the revenue records, they were recorded as co-sharers of the said land in joint possession of the same. On 14.9.1999, the respondent-Roshan Singh made an application to the SHO, Police Station, Mukerian alleging therein that he and his brother Sudershan Singh are the joint owners of the afore-said land, and his brother is obstructing him from harvesting the wheat crop sown by him on the land pertaining to his share. On the said application, the SHO, Mukerian submitted a Calendra to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian for taking an action under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code as according to him, there was an apprehension of breach of peace and commission of some cognizable offence by both the parties as there was a dispute about possession and harvesting of the crop. On the said Calendra, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code while passing the following order :-

"It is alleged that both the parties claim their possession on the disputed land. Whereas I am satisfied from the report 15.04.99 submitted by S.H.O., Mukerian in this case that the above-mentioned parties are likely to commit breach of peace in respect of land described in the head-note. I hereby direct Party No. I and Party No. II to attend this Court in person or through legal representation on 16.04.1999 at 10.00 A.M. and to put in written statements of their claims in respect of possession of the disputed land. Both the Party No. I and II are to produce all evidence in support of their claims on the above- said date i.e. 16.04.1999."

3. Subsequently, on 20.4.1999, an order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was also passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian, appointing Naib Tehsildar, Mukerian as receiver on the land in question.

4. The petitioner has challenged the afore-said orders in this petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two submissions. Firstly, that a civil suit for declaration filed by the petitioner to the effect that he is owner in possession on the land measuring 118 kanals 11 marlas comprising in khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya. In that civil suit, both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo vide order dated 6.1.1997 (Annexure P-3). In view of this, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mukerian was not competent and justified to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Lord Shiva Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 706 (P&H); M/s. Sukhdev Raj, Baldev Raj v. Bagga Singh, 1998(3) RCR(Criminal) 468 (P&H) and Saroj Gupta v. Nand Lal, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 435 (P&H).

6. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly, the afore-said two brothers were the joint owners of the land in question. In the revenue record, both the parties were recorded as co-sharers in joint possession of the land in question. It has also come on record that an application for partition filed by the respondent-Roshan Singh before the revenue Court under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, is pending. The said partition application has been adjourned sine-die to await the decision of