Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 448

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Raghuraj Singh and others – Applicants
Versus
State of MP and others – Respondents
MCRC-17494-2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shri. Prashant Sharma
For the Respondent: Shri. C.P. Singh, Shri. H.K. Dixit

Injunction cannot be passed against a co-owner, and possession is crucial in resolving disputes under Section 145 of CrPC. Civil court decisions are binding on criminal court proceedings, and multiplicity of litigation should be avoided.

Headnote:KEYWORD - CrPC Subject: Order under Section 146 of CrPC Section 482 of CrPC, Section 146(1) of CrPC The court discusses the order passed under Section 146 of CrPC, which allowed the attachment of standing crop in a dispute between co-owners. The court refers to the principle that injunction cannot be passed against a co-owner and highlights the importance of possession in resolving disputes under Section 145 of CrPC. The court also cites the Supreme Court's judgments in Ram Sumer Puri Mehant v. State of U.P. and Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, which emphasize the need to avoid multiplicity of litigation and the binding nature of civil court decisions on criminal court proceedings. The court concludes that the attachment of the crop was improper and quashes the orders passed by the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The application under Section 482 of CrPC is filed against the order rejecting the revision filed against the order allowing the attachment of standing crop under Section 146(1) of CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the attachment of the crop was improper and the parties have the opportunity to seek interim orders from the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi:
Injunction cannot be passed against a co-owner, and possession is crucial in resolving disputes under Section 145 of CrPC. Civil court decisions are binding on criminal court proceedings, and multiplicity of litigation should be avoided. Final Decision: The court quashes the orders passed by the lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind thereby rejecting the revision filed against the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind, by which the interim application filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 146(1) of CrPC has been allowed and the standing crop has been attached.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the police filed an Istagasa No.2/2021 under Sections 145 and 146 of CrPC alleging that there is a possibility of breach of peace on account of dispute between the applicants and the respondents, in respect of Survey Nos.985, 1035, 1068, 1074, 422, 982, 1124, 1126, 690, 751, 1168, 1054, 1059, 944, 939, 940, 954, 631, 945, 946, 1025, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1094, 1052 situated in Moja Lodhe Ki Pali and Khasra No.1056, 1167, 944, 1103, 950, 1175, 1177, 1132/3 also situated in Banke Moja Lodhe Ki Pali. It was alleged that all the parties, i.e., the applicant and the respondents are the joint holder and are in joint possession and they are cultivating the land. Crops of mustard and wheat are standing. The applicants No. 1 to 4 etc. are trying to harvest the crop by show of muscles, therefore, there is a possibility of breach of peace.

3. Istagasa was filed on 15.03.2022 and on the very same day the SDM, Gohad District Bhind rejected the application filed under Section 146 of CrPC and the report of Patwari was called. On 16.03.2022 Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was fixed for 17.03.2022 and on 17.03.2022 the report of RI was received and the case was fixed for 21.03.2022 and on 21.03.2022 the case was adjourned because of condolence. On 22.03.2022 the respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared before the SDM, Gohad, District Bhind and made a prayer for attachment of the crop. In response, counsel for the applicants took objection on the Patwari report and also requested for summoning a fresh report. However, counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 expressed that there is a possibility of breach of peace and the dispute is concerning the entire land and partition has not taken place and, accordingly, it was directed that the standing crop be attached and be handed over in the supurdagi of Kotwar Lodhe Ki Pali.

4. Challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad, the applicants preferred a revision, which too has been dismissed by order dated 31.12.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.1000/2022.

5. The Revisional Court in paragraph 10 of its order came to a conclusion that the land in dispute is jointly owned and possessed by the applicant and the respondents No. 2 and 3 and the civil suit is already pending in the Civil Court, but observed that it is not clear that which part of the land is in possession of which party. It was also observed that in the Civil Suit No.208-A/2015, 122-A/2018 and 51-A/2016, the applicants have filed a suit for declaration of their title and in possession of Survey Nos. 1056, 1167, 944, 751, 1168, 452, 982, 1124, 1126 to the extent of their 3/6th share, whereas in Civil Suit No.122-A/2018, respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed a suit for declaration of ''Will'' dated 20.09.2016 as null and void. According to the ''Will'', the deceased Ramnath has executed a will in favour of the applicants Balveer Singh, Vikas and Brajesh. Thus, it was held that it is clear that Ramnath who was the father of applicants and the respondents No. 2 and 3 had executed a ''Will'' in favour of his children which has resulted in giving birth to the dispute. It was also observed that the basic purpose of the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC is to find out as to who was in possession of the property as well as to restore peace and unless and until civil suit is decided, the dispute has to be resolved on the basis of possession. Accordingly,