The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle that co-sharers out of possession have a remedy of partition to obtain possession of their share, and possession should be obtained through the process of the court, not illegally or forcibly.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is for quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 5.12.2012 registered under Sections 379/447 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

2. Brief facts of the case are that Harbans Singh and Baldev Singh are the real brothers and they were holding 86 Kanals 18 Marias of land situated in village Akala, Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. Harbans Singh had sold 12 Kanals of land out of his share to Harjinder Singh vide sale deed dated 29.12.1999 and also handed over the possession of the sold portion to him. After the death of the other brother Baldev Singh, his wife Surjit Kaur also sold some land vide two sale deeds, i.e. the first sale deed dated 5.9.2005 for 9 Kanals 6 Marias of land to one Amarjit Kaur and another sale deed dated 11.4.2011 vide which 03 Kanals 12 Marias of land was sold to Amarjit Kaur.

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the partition proceedings regarding the partition of the land was pending between the parties and one more person, namely, Sukhjinder Singh had set up a claim of 17 Kanals 13 Marias of land with the allegations that his father Jagtar Singh had also purchased some land from Harbans Singh and started claiming possession on the land, which, according to the petitioner, was in possession of Gurmej Singh and Amarjit Kaur.

4. Later on, on an application, made by said Sukhjinder Singh, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath vide impugned order dated 30.9.2011 initiated the proceedings under the 145 Cr.P.C. regarding the disputed land, i.e. 35 Kanals 7 Marias. Thereafter, on 6.12.2011 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath appointed a Receiver under the provision of Section 146 Cr.P.C., 1973

5. Thereafter, Sukhjinder Singh filed a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions, in which, on 9.5.2012, the following order was passed:-

"The parties are at liberty to cut the wheat crop in accordance with their respective shares as recorded in the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2008-09. In case, they have any apprehension of the any dispute/breach of peace, then in that eventually, they are at liberty to approach the concerned police for help for cutting the crop of their respective shares, stated to be standing over the suit land as well as over the land at detailed in the above said copies of the Jamabandi."

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, on 16.11.2012, the Sub Divisional Magis-trate,"Bholath again initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 qua 35 Kanals 7 Marias of land and appointed a Receiver vide impugned order dated 16.11.2012.

7. Counsel for the petitioner, in the meantime, the petitioner had harvested the wheat crop, according to their share, however, the impugned FIR No. 106 dated 5.12.2012 was got registered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bholath under Sections 379 and 447 I.P.C. in Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala on the allegations that though the Receiver has taken the possession yet the petitioners have harvested the wheat crop and, therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 447 I.P.C.

8. Counsel for the petitioners has sought the quashing of the FIR on the grounds that, in fact, it is purely a civil dispute, in which the partition proceedings were pending and in pursuance to the Section 145 Cr.P.C., 1973 proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.11.2012, the possession was never delivered to the Receiver.

9. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per record the petitioners were in possession of the land and, therefore, there was no occasion for the police to invoke Sections 379 and 447 I.P.C. The counsel for the petitioners has further argued that vide order dated 9.5.2012, the Revisional Court has given a right to the petitioners to cut the wheat crop, which remained operative even for the subsequent cr