IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing breach of peace and the different objectives of the civil court and the Magistrate in cases of possession disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srijan Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri R.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Irfan Ali against opposite party no. 2-Rajeev Gupta and 4 others, challenging the order passed by the Court of Session in Criminal Revision No. 286 of 2012 (Rajeev Gupta Vs. Irfan Ali and others), whereby an order passed by the Court of Additional City Magistrate dated 29.08.2012 passed under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. was set-aside.

3. The submissions of the petitioner are as below:-

The opposite party no. 2-Rajeev Gupta filed an application before the Executive Magistrate which gave rise to a proceeding under sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. with regard to plot no. A-13, Gandhi Nagar, Moradabad and the learned Court of Additional City Magistrate, after hearing both the sides and perusal of papers on record, dropped the proceedings and released the plot in favour of the petitioner-Irfan Ali. However, the order rightly passed by the Additional City Magistrate was set-aside by the Court of revision.

The case of the petitioner is that he acquired the ownership and possession of the disputed plot on the basis of two registered sale deeds of 03.06.2011, from previous owners namely, Mohd. Furkaan, Mohd. Gurfaan and Mohd. Rizwan, all sons of Late Mohd. Jaan; this property was released in favour of aforesaid Mohd. Jaan in a Land Acquisition Reference No. 70 of 1956 by an order dated 24.03.1960.

The then S.O., Thana Galshaheed, Moradabad filed a chalani report on 10.06.2011, requesting the City Magistrate for attatchment of disputed property i.e., plot no. A-13 part of gata no. 124, area 381.51 square meters; The Additional City Magistrate issued notice against them i.e., Irfan Ali and 3 others under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. by order dated 15.06.2011; the court concerned passed another order the same day under section 146(1) Cr.P.C., directing for attachment and for handing over the possession to a receiver.

Earlier, the opposite party no. 2 had filed an Original Suit no. 506 of 2011, challenging the two sale deed dated 03.06.2011 executed in favour of the petitioner, which is pending.

Though the plaintiff opposite party no. 2-Rajeev Gupta also made a prayer for injunction, but no injunction had been granted to him;

The petitioner filed objections against the proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the opposite party no. 2 had filed an application under section 145(5) Cr.P.C. expressing that no longer any apprehension of breach of peace existed, therefore the proceedings may be dropped and the property may be released; this application was moved on 22.06.2011;

The contention is that the claim of the opposite party no. 2 having been based on unregistered, unstamped title deed dated 27.08.1957, allegedly executed by the Moradabad Cooperative Housing Society in favour of father of opposite party no. 2, no reliance could be placed on the same and therefore opposite party no. 2 has no rights from such documents.

The Additional City Magistrate, after considering all the material, rightly dropped the proceeding and released the same in favour of the petitioner; the property was attached and handed over to a receiver from possession of Irfan Ali (the petitioner), therefore rightly released to him.

Another ground which has been taken in this writ petition is that the court of revision had stayed the operation of impugned order dated 15.06.2011, which was being extended from time to time but was not extended after 12.07.2012, hence the finding of the revisional court on this point is not sustainable.

The parties were asserting that there existed no longer any apprehension of breach of peace; the High Court in an Application u/s 482 No. 40653 of 2011, directed the Magistrate to decide the proceeding pending b