Back
2021 Supreme(MP) 717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH, GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Rajabeti Sakhwar and Others - Applicants
Versus
Darshanlal Sakhwar and Others – Respondents
M. Cr.C. No. 18242 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
For the Applicants : Shri J.P. Mishra.
For the Respondents: Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, Shri. C.P. Singh.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that when a civil litigation is pending between the parties, it is not conducive to multiply the litigation by initiating separate proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC. The court emphasized that the civil court is competent to decide the question of title and possession, and its orders would be binding on the Magistrate.
Headnote:
CrPC - Quashment of Proceedings - Section 145 - 18.03.2021 Police Station Gormi District Bhind filed an Istgasa before the SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind on the allegation that a dispute is going on between the parties for the possession of land bearing Survey No.305/09, 306/4 and 306/1. 26 bags of mustard crop and a green color trolley were seized. SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind made an endorsement on the application dated 20.03.2021 made by the respondents No. 1 to 5 on administrative side for seizure of the crop. The administrative direction given by the SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind for seizure of the mustard crop from the possession of Ramdas and Kuldeep are hereby quashed. The proceedings either taken under Section 145 of CrPC in Case No.121/145x21 or on the administrative side by the SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind are hereby quashed. The Police Gormi District Bhind as well as SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind are directed to ensure that all the seized mustard crop or the crop which was given to the receiver is hereby returned back to the applicants. It shall be the duty of SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind to personally ensure that the entire mustard crop seized either by the police or handed over to the receiver is returned back in a proper condition within a period of five days from today. If it is found that the crop has suffered any loss in quality or if it is found that the total quantity of crop seized from the possession of the applicants or handed over to the receiver is not available, then the SDM, Mehgaon District Bhind shall be personally liable to pay the cost of the said missing mustard crop to the applicants. The entire exercise be completed within a period of five days from today and the SDM, Mehgaon, District Bhind is directed to submit his report before the Principal Registrar of this Court latest by 14.07.2021. This application is allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the respondents No. 1 to 5 within a week in the Registry of this Court. The Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to initiate the proceedings for recovery of cost in accordance with law in case, if the same is not deposited within a period of seven days from today in the Registry of this Court. Apart from initiating the recovery proceedings, Principal Registrar of this Court is also directed to register the proceedings for contempt of Court in case the cost is not deposited. With aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed for quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of CrPC registered as Case No. 121/145x21 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehgaon, District Bhind. The dispute arose over the possession of land and the harvested mustard crops. The applicants claimed ownership and possession, while the respondents claimed ownership as Maurushi Krishak. The civil suit filed by the respondents was dismissed, and the second appeal was pending. The police seized 26 bags of mustard crops, and the SDM issued administrative directions for the seizure of the crop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the administrative direction given by the SDM for the seizure of the mustard crop was quashed. The proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC and the administrative actions by the SDM were also quashed. The Police and the SDM were directed to return the seized mustard crop to the applicants within five days. The SDM was held personally liable for any loss in quality or quantity of the crop. The court allowed the application with a cost of Rs.20,000 to be deposited by the respondents within a week. The Principal Registrar was directed to initiate proceedings for recovery of cost and register proceedings for contempt of Court if the cost was not deposited.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the administrative direction given by the SDM for the seizure of the mustard crop and the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC. The court also addressed the pending civil suit and second appeal, and the actions of the police and SDM in relation to the disputed land and crops.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments to establish that when a civil litigation is pending between the parties, it is not conducive to multiply the litigation by initiating separate proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC. The court emphasized that the civil court is competent to decide the question of title and possession, and its orders would be binding on the Magistrate. The court held that the administrative actions by the SDM and the police were a misuse of power and quashed the proceedings and directions. The court directed the return of the seized mustard crop and held the SDM personally liable for any loss.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC and the administrative actions by the SDM. It directed the return of the seized mustard crop to the applicants within five days and held the SDM personally liable for any loss. The court allowed the application with a cost of Rs.20,000 to be deposited by the respondents within a week, and directed the Principal Registrar to initiate proceedings for recovery of cost and register proceedings for contempt of Court if the cost was not deposited.
ORDER :
1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of CrPC registered as Case No. 121/145x21 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehgaon, District Bhind.
2. It is the case of the applicants that police Gormi District Bhind has presented Istgasa No.01/21 under Section 145 before the Court of SDM, Mehgaon, District Bhind on the allegation that the applicants are owner and in possession of land bearing Survey No. 305/09, 306/04 and 306/1 situated in village Gormi District Bhind and the respondent No. 2 are claiming ownership pleading that they are Maurushi Krishak and in possession of the said land. Since both the parties are claiming their possession over the said land, therefore, there is possibility of breach. Accordingly, 26 bags of mustard were also seized.
3. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants had harvested the mustard crops standing over the land in question and the same was kept in the field. However, the respondent No. 8 in connivance of the authorities and the private respondents unauthorizedly took away the said mustard crop and kept in the Police Station without obtaining the order of the SDO. It is also contended that the applicants have submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind for return of the said mustard crops. However, no heed has been paid.
4. Earlier the respondents No. 1 to 5 had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the sale deed dated 16.12.1992 as nullity and void, which was registered as Civil Suit No.259-A/1998 (Ram Lal and others Vs. Laxmi Datt and others). The said civil suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22.12.2006 and it was found that the applicants are in possession of the said land. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 5 filed Civil Appeal No. 15/2009, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 and it was also held that the applicants are in possession of the land. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 5 filed second appeal, which has been registered as Second Appeal No.158/2011 and by order dated 16.01.2013, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo. It is contended that on earlier occasion also, respondents No. 1 to 5 had filed a complaint No.8/2014x145CrPC under Section 145 of CrPC, however, the said complaint was dismissed by SDM, Mehgaon by order dated 23.05.2014 in the light of the pendency of the civil suit. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 lodged a FIR in Crime No.37/2013 against the applicants for offence under Sections 379, 294, 447, 188, 506 of IPC. The said proceedings were challenged by the applicants by filing an application under Section 482 of CrPC, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.2519/2013 and Crime No.37/2013 was quashed by this Court by order dated 27.04.2017. In the Istgasa also, the applicants have filed all the documents before the SDM and prayed for dropping the proceedings. However, neither the proceedings were dropped nor any order to handover the crops of mustard has been passed. It is further alleged that SDM, by order dated 22.03.2021 has directed the Revenue Inspector and Patwari to file Panch Prativedan to the effect that as to who is in possession of the land in dispute for the last two months.
5. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed I.A. No.18406/2021 for dismissal of petition. It is admitted that the civil dispute is pending between the parties and S.A. No.158/2011 is pending before this Court, which was admitted by order dated 16.01.2013 and the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree has been stayed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the applicant No. 3 filed an application for modification of the stay order in the second appeal, however, the said application was rejected by order dated 15.03.2013 with an observation that no modification is r
