IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed when civil litigation is ongoing, as civil court decrees take precedence.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat J. (Oral): The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hodal and the order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against the petitioners and by invoking the provision of Section 146 Cr.P.C., the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, (for short ‘BDPO’), Hassanpur was appointed as a Receiver of the attached land. The BDPO was further directed to lease out the land in question and to deposit the amount in the bank account of the Panchayat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, on the basis of the complaint moved by Chanderbhan son of Ram Chander and Dev Dutt son of Sh. Surajmal, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hodal (SDM, Hodal) ordered the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. against all the Biswedars and cultivators of village Fatesko Nagar @ Faat Nagar, Sub-Tehsil Hassanpur, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal. As per the Kalendra, presented by the police, during the course of inquiry, the record pertaining to ownership rights relating to the land in question was received from the Revenue Department and the land in question was Shamlat Deh. Many cultivators of the village had sold the above-mentioned land and the mutations pertaining to such sales had already been cancelled and the land had again been transferred to the Gram Panchayat as Shamlat Deh. On account of this, tension had griped the entire village as Shamlat Deh was being cultivated by certain persons illegally in the village. Even a fight had taken place on 07.05.2023 and on 08.05.2023 also. Due to this, the residents of the village had submitted complaints against each other and one FIR No.129 dated 08.05.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 307, 120-B of IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Chanderbhan son of Ramchand, whereas FIR No.130 dated 08.05.2023 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3-33-89 of SC and ST Act was registered on the complaint moved by Satbir son of Sh. Sugni. Consequently, there was tension in the village and to avoid any untoward incident, a Kalendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was presented before the Court of SDM, Hodal and he was requested to appoint a Receiver to attach the land. Vide the impugned order, the land in question was ordered to be attached and the BDPO, Hassanpur was appointed as a Receiver on the attached land and was further directed to lease out the land in question and was also directed to deposit the amount of lease in a bank account, in the present case.

3. The petitioners moved a revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge and vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2023, the Court of Mr.Rajesh Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal had dismissed the said revision petition in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the SDM, Hodal had illegally initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and there was no apprehension of breach of peace in the area. As per him, Goswara of the Revenue State of village Fataska Nagar was prepared in the year 2006 and the petitioners were shown to be owners of the land in view of the Mutation No.729 and 730, which were sanctioned in their favour by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 16.12.2006. He further contends that now a revision petition, arising out of the said order, was pending before the Court of Commissioner, Gurugram. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the proprietors of the village had also filed a suit before the District Collector under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and the Gram Panchayat had also filed an ejectment petition against the proprietors in t