The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of determining actual possession in resolving disputes over land and the need for a fair and expeditious resolution of proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C.

Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Shamimul Hasnain and Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.K. Jain assisted by Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), the applicants who are father and sons have prayed for quashing of order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Muzaffarnagar in Case No.16 of 2008 (Mukesh Kumar v. Jay Singh and others) under Section 145(1)/146(1) Cr.P.C., whereby agricultural plot no.78/2 area 1.682 hectare, 966/1 area 0.053 hectare and 566/3 area 2.278 hectare situated at village Bilaspur, P.S. Nai Mandi, Tehshil Sadar, District Muzaffarnagar has been attached and given in the 'Supurdagi' of 'Supurdgars'.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

4. That the opposite party no.3 moved an application dated 30.09.2008 addressed to S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar stating therein that he has purchased the land in dispute as above through two sale deeds dated 09.01.2002 and 09.10.2002 from heirs of Vidya Bhushan and his son Deepak Bhushan. The name has been mutated in revenue records. He further stated that he is owner in possession of disputed agricultural plots and one Jay Singh along with his two sons is claiming possession on the land in dispute on the basis of a forged 'Thekanama' (lease deed) alleged to have been executed by Deepak Bhushan. Jay Singh and his two sons frequently use to come on land in dispute and criminally intimidated the labourers of opposite party no.3 and asked them to leave the possession. On this report, a police report dated 10.10.2008 addressed to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar was 2 submitted by police of P.S. Nai Mandi, stating therein that, the opposite party no.3 has purchased the land in dispute through two sale deeds dated 09.01.2002 and 09.10.2002 from heirs of Deepak Bhushan namely Sandeep Goyal and Radhika Goyal and his name was mutated in the revenue records at the time of submission of police report. The crops of sugarcane, paddy, gram and urad were standing and some part of land in dispute was vacant. The report further indicated that the opposite party no.3 was in possession and Jay Singh and other are also claiming their possession. Against both the parties proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. has been initiated on 23.06.2008 and is pending before the court concerned. Both the parties claimed that crops have been cultivated by them and in view of this fact, there is possibility of breach of peace. The police report was submitted along with necessary documents i.e. order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur, photo copy of Khasra and Khatauni, copies of will deeds, copies of sale deeds and certain documents provided by the opposite party no.3. The Sub divisional Magistrate acting on police report vide order dated 17.10.2008 under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. directed both the parties to appear on 23.10.2008 before him and to establish their claim about possession by way of written submission along with documents. By the second order, on the same day, under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate directed S.H.O., P.S. Nai Mandi to give disputed property in 'Supurdagi' of two reliable and independent persons to avoid any dispute. In compliance of above order, the land in dispute along with crops standing thereon was given in 'Supurdagi' of Jagdish Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar.

5. Being aggrieved from impugned orders, the applicants Jay Singh and his two sons have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with averment that on 21/23.05.1994, a letting was executed in favour of applicant no.1 Jay Singh by Deepak Bhushan for land in dispute at the rate of Rs.25000/per annum, which is Annexure-1 to the application and the possession was delivered to applicant no.1. Deepak Bhushan died issue