The main legal point established in the judgment is that invoking Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving co-tenants is inappropriate as it deprives a co-tenant of their legal right to possession, and they should instead approach revenue or civil authorities.

R.L. Anand, J. - This petition is being disposed of separately and stands detached from R.S.A. Nos. 662 and 1184 of 1994.

2. Nahar Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the respondents for the quashment of the Kalandra filed by the S.H.O., Police Station, Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana (Respondent No. 3) under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code along with the order of the S.D.M., Raikot dated 7.2.2000, Annexure P-10, and all proceedings taken in pursuance of the order dated 20.12.1999 pending before the S.D.M., Raikot.

3. The facts are not much in dispute but only the question of law is involved. Admittedly, the land belongs to Dera Udasian, which is the owner to the extent of 19 kanals 5 marlas but the dispute in the present case is with regard to the land measuring 39 kanals comprised in khasra Nos. 590, 591, 592, 593, 594 and 599 min. The area of 39 kanals was earlier in the tenancy of Niranjan Singh. Petitioner and respondents 5 and 6; namely, Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh are real brothers and they are sons of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh was occupying the area measuring 39 kanals comprised in the khasra Nos. stated above, in the capacity of a tenant under the Dera. Niranjan Singh died somewhere in the year 1983. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, being tenants in common, inherited the tenancy rights of Niranjan Singh. It appears that thereafter some dispute arose amongst the brothers with Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh on one side and the petitioner Nahar Singh on the other side. On the application of Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Raikot, started the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code According to the SHO, there was likelihood of the breach of peace with regard to the area in dispute and he submitted the Kalandra, Annexure P-6, before the learned SDM, Raikot, who passed the preliminary order dated 20.12.1999, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and also appointed a Receiver. Nahar Singh is not satisfied with the proceedings taken up by the SDM, therefore, he has filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashment of the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and all subsequent proceedings taken by the SDM, on the ground that since the contesting parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, are tenants in common, after the death of their father Niranjan Singh, in such a situation, the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code are nothing but an abuse of process of law as the possession of the contesting parties will be considered as joint.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed one set of written statement and the State has tried to justify the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code For our purposes, the stand taken up by respondents 5 and 6 in their written statement is relevant. According to this written statement, the land in dispute was being cultivated by Niranjan Singh till his death with the help of all the three brothers and after his death, this land is being cultivated jointly as they had inherited the tenancy rights of their father.

5. In these circumstances, the legal point which arises in this case is whether the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code can be initiated when the contesting parties are tenants in common.

6. Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code lays down that whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in