JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. which were initiated vide report No.11 dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-7) with respect to the land measuring 39K- 4M. Besides this, a challenge has also been made to order dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon, District Ludhiana whereby respondent No.3-Naib Tehsildar, Sindhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon was appointed as Receiver. The petitioners have further laid a challenge to order dated 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has inter alia made the following submissions:-

(i) that respondent No.5 is the registered owner of the land in dispute measuring 39K-4M, however, it was petitioner No.1 who was in cultivating possession of the said land. Petitioner No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.01.2004 with respondent No.5 for the purchase of the land in question. It was agreed upon between the parties that after harvesting the wheat crop, petitioner No.1 would retain the possession of the land. The target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed for 16.11.2004. However, respondent No.5 failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of petitioner No.1. Resultantly, a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.01.2004 was instituted by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.5. The said suit for specific performance was decreed by the learned Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. A Regular Second Appeal which has since been preferred by petitioner No.1 is pending adjudication before this Court, wherein stay of alienation, has been ordered.

(ii) that the petitioner had been in cultivating possession of the land in question even prior to the agreement to sell dated 12.01.2004, which fact had also been admitted by respondent No.5 in his statement dated 15.06.2014 made before one ASI Gulzar Singh, PS Sindhwan Bet (Annexure P-6), pursuant to a complaint bearing No.677 made by him on 14.06.2014. Subsequent to the inquiry carried out on the said complaint, the police had submitted a report to SSP, Jagraon wherein also it was reported that petitioner No.1 was in possession of the land.

(iii) that due to change of Government in the State, respondent No.5 who is an influential person, started interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioner No.1 as a result of which the petitioners filed a complaint dated 20.06.2017, before the local police authorities. Respondent No.5 had also filed a complaint to police dated 19.06.2017 but the same was with a malicious intent to defeat the rights of the petitioners. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaints, respondent No.4- SHO, Police Station Sindhwan Bet, erred in preparing Report No.11 dated 03.11.2017, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The application dated 21.11.2017 for appointing a Receiver for the standing paddy crops was thus clearly misconceived in the above facts and circumstances.

(iv) that the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Cr.P.C. could not have been initiated once respondent No.5 had himself admitted to the possession of the petitioners in his statement given to police. Still further, once a civil suit for specific performance had been instituted qua the land in question and a Regular Second Appeal was also pen