Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 May, 2014
Author: Amol Rattan Singh
Bench: Amol Rattan Singh
CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.27688 of 2013
Date of decision : May 7, 2014.
Randhir Singh & Ors.
...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab & Ors.
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
***
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
***
Present : Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Kler, A.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
***
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
This petition, filed by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the 3 rd & 4th respondents (in their official capacity, though they have been impleaded by name), under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C., on a complaint/application filed by respondent No.5.
2. As per the complaint dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-11), the first petitioner had executed an agreement to sell his land measuring 31 bighas and 10 biswas to respondent No.5 in the year 1995 and `8 lacs were paid in cash on the spot and the remaining amount of `1.5 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The application further states that the Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:2:- possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.5 at the time of taking the earnest money of `8 lacs but thereafter the first petitioner had refused to get the sale deed registered, leading to respondent No.5 filing a suit seeking specific performance in the competent court, which, "after being heard by various courts, is now admitted in the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh".
The application further states that since 1995, the applicant (respondent No.5) was cultivating the land and that the revenue record was continuously recorded in his name.
The allegation in the application is that, thereafter, on the date of application, i.e. 8.5.2013, the lock of the room containing a tubewell bore had been broken by the second respondent (who is the son of the first respondent) and one spade had also been stolen.
The applicant therefore, in effect, sought that the second respondent be restrained from interfering with his possession. He further stated that the decision of the High Court "would be acceptable to me" and that action be taken against the second respondent, i.e. Surjit Singh.
3. Upon the above application, respondent No.4 initiated proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. and arrested the first and second petitioners.
4. In the present petition, the detailed background of the civil litigation has been depicted, as detailed hereinafter, as submitted by Mr. Daldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The suit filed by respondent No.5 on 28.01.1997, seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell was initially decreed on 13.10.2003, but on appeal the matter was remanded by the Additional Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:3:- District Judge to the lower Court on 5.9.2009, after framing an additional issue with regard to whether the earnest money of `8 lacs had actually been received or not and with a further direction that the entire suit be decided afresh.
That order was appealed against by respondent No.5 by way of SAO No.50 of 2009 and vide order dated 14.10.2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, issued notice and stayed proceedings before the trial Court.
That matter is stated to be still pending in this Court.
6. In the meanwhile, a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining respondent No.5 from interfering in the possession of petitioner No.1 over the land in question, was also filed by the latter, in which his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. was dismissed by the 1 st Court on 17.2.2002, upon which he filed an appeal before the appellate Court, which, while allowing the appeal on 5.9.2002, restrained respondent No.5 from interfering in the possession of the first petitioner over the suit land, except in due course of law and at least till the final disposal of the main suit.
That order was also appealed against by respondent No.5 before this Court by way of a civil revision petition, which was also dismissed on 09.12.2002 with the following order of a co-ordinate bench: -
"I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 5.9.2002 passed by the lower Appellate Court vide which the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been allowed and the order dated 17.5.2002 passed by the trial Court has been set aside. The lower Appellate Court has categorically observed that the appellant Randhir Singh who Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:4:- is alleged to be the vendor shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law, which means that if the petitioner- defendant succeeds in the suit for specific performance shall be entitled to execute the decree as per law.
Dismissed.
December 9, 2002"
For the record, it needs mention here, (though nothing would devolve upon that in these proceedings), that the suit was filed by respondent No.5 seeking specific performance, on 28.1.1997 and was initially decreed on 13.10.2003 after which it had been remanded back on 5.9.2009, after which the order of this Court, dated 14.10.2009, was passed in SAO No.50 of 2009. The date of filing of the suit for permanent injunction by the first petitioner, Randhir Singh, is not on record, but the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing his applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as already given hereinafore, is dated 17.5.2002, which was reversed by the learned District Judge on 5.9.2002.
7. After the order dated 9.12.2002 of this Court, upholding the temporary injunction granted in favour of petitioner No.1 by the Additonal District Judge, in his suit for permanent injunction, the application of respondent No.5 seeking similar relief under the same provision (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC) in the suit filed by him for specific performance, was dismissed on 14.6.2003 by the trial Court, obviously in view of the fact that he (respondent No.5) had already been restrained upto this Court from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioner No.1 over the suit land. The appeal against that order was also dismissed by the Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:5:- District Judge, Sangrur on 18.8.2003 which is admitted to have become final, not having been challenged before this Court. The last paragraph of the said order reads as under: -
8. "Neither the plaintiff has a prima facie case nor can he be dispossessed from the suit property. His apprehension of dispossession is therefore, imaginary. A person who is not in possession of suit property can hardly be dispossessed. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to interfere. I am therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in his appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5,000/-."(Emphasis supplied)
8. Thereafter, the suit of petitioner No.1 (seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.5), was decreed on 2.9.2005 by the trial Court and the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur on 3.11.2008.
9. Thus, as an upshot of the civil litigation, the situation as it stands today, is that after the suit of respondent No.5 was decreed initially, that order was set aside by the Appellate Court and was remanded to the trial Court with directions to decide it afresh, after including an additional issue framed by the said Appellate Court.
Therefore, as it appears, though the proceedings before the trial Court, upon remand of the case by the Appellate Court, remain stayed by this Court, as admitted by parties, however, the decree passed in favour of respondent No.5 is also obviously not in operation. On the other hand, the Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:6:- suit for permanent injunction filed by the first petitioner has been decreed and in effect, respondent No.5 has been restrained from interfering in the possession of the first petitioner, over the suit land, except by due course of law, if the suit for specific performance is eventually decreed again in favour of respondent No.5 and such decree is executed.
10. Mr. Dhuriwala, learned counsel for respondent No.5, also while referring to the civil litigation, submitted that the fact that the suit instituted by the said respondent was actually initially decreed and infact even the proceedings, on remand by the appellate Court, were stayed by this Court, shows that it is actually respondent No.5 who is in possession, upon having paid 85% of the consideration money in 1995 and, as such, the civil litigation is being given a different color by the petitioners.
He therefore contended that it was obvious that possession of the suit land is actually with respondent No.5, which is also further proved by the revenue record in his favour. Thus it is the petitioners who were the aggressors, according to learned counsel, and factually it is they who tried to dispossess Ajmer Singh (Respondent No.5). As such, he prayed that the proceedings initiated under Section 107-151 Cr.P.C. are very much in order, called for and legal and would need to be taken to their logical conclusion.
He further submitted that even the applications filed by petitioner No.1 for correction of the "khasra girdwaries" before the revenue authorities, were dismissed in view of the fact that it was actually respondent No.5 who was in possession of the suit land. (Though such orders of the revenue authorities are not on record, photocopies of the same were produced in Court).
11. Mr. Dhuriwala further reiterated the contentions made in the Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:7:- reply filed by him, in which he specifically drew attention to the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC), Malerkotla, dated 17.12.2009, acquitting respondent No.5 along with 3 other co-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 & 506 IPC, in pursuance of an FIR lodged at the instance of the first petitioner on 8.4.2005, alleging therein that respondent No.5 and his co-accused had forcibly harvested the petitioners' crop.
In the said judgment, Mr. Dhuriwala specifically drew attention to the finding of the JMIC that respondent No.5 is in possession of 11 bigas & 12 biswas of land, which was proved by the evidence of the Halqua Patwari as also by the revenue record, thus belying the stand of the petitioners.
12. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, D.A.G. Punjab, submitted that, as a matter of fact, proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against both, the petitioners as also respondent No.5, in view of the respective applications made by them against each-other. He drew attention of the Court to Annexures with the reply of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Amargarh, Distrcit Sangrur, filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, showing that such proceedings had actually been initiated against respondent No.5 also, on the same day as they were initiated against the petitioners, i.e. on 30.5.2013.
As such, like Mr. Dhuriwala, learned State Counsel also prayed for dismissal of the petition, submitting that proceedings initiated against both the parties were on account of apprehension and danger of breach of peace, as both sides were 'hell-bent' upon taking law into their own hands and fighting with each-other over the possession of the land. Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:8:-
13. After considering the rival submissions made on both sides, I am of the view that as regards the proceedings under challenge, i.e. those initiated under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. on an apprehension of breach of peace, no fault can be found per se in such proceedings, the same having been initiated against both parties, in view of the stand taken by the State.
However, Mr. Daldeep Singh submitted that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are only an attempt to brow-beat them into leaving possession of the land, despite the civil Court decree in their favour, restraining respondent No.5 from interfering in their peaceful possession, except by due course of law.
14. In my view, nothing need be said further on that, in view of the fact that the civil Court finding, as a matter of record, is in favour of the petitioners, holding them in possession of the land in question and restraining respondent No.5 from interfering in the said possession. Obviously, any Court of an Executive Magistrate which is ceased of the proceedings initiated against both sides under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C., would be bound by the Civil Court findings in that respect, if such issue comes up before the Magistrate with regard to possession of the land in question. In this regard, Mr. Daldeep Singh placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 472, in which it was held as under:-
2. xxxxx "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.
There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:9:- decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of decree of the Civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such an injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code has been initiated and the property in dispute has been attached. We leave it open to either party to move the appellate Judge in the civil litigation for appropriate interim orders, if so advised, in the event of dispute relating to possession."
Other than the above judgment, the judgment in P.Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu 2008(5) SCC 765, can also be cited to the same effect, in which their Lordships quoted from the earlier judgment of Mahar Jahan & Ors. vs. State of Delhi & Ors, 2004(13) SCC
421. The quote made from the latter case, in the former, is a follows, as Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:10:- taken from para 16 of Swaroopa Ranis' case:-
"4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this very property which is subject-matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil Court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may in operation during the hearing of the civil suit.
It was furthermore observed:-
7. We have simply noted the contention raised by the parties. The civil court, in our opinion, would be the most appropriate forum to take care of such grievances and pass such interim order as would reasonably protect the interests of both the parties. The civil court Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:11:- may issue an ad interim injunction, may appoint a Commissioner or Receiver or may make any other interim arrangement as to possession or user of the property which is the subject-matter of proceedings in the civil court exercising the power conferred on it by Section 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It was, therefore, a case where this Court quashed a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the matter pending before it arose out of a civil proceedings. Such observations were made keeping in view the fact that possession of the parties over the property in suit was in question."
15. Hence, in view of the law laid down as above, a criminal Court, including a Court proceeding under Sections 107 or 151 Cr.P.C. and any other proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code, would be bound by the civil Court decree in favour of the petitioner, unless of-course, the injunction granted by such decree, is vacated by any decree or order passed in favour of respondent No.5 in the suit filed by him for specific performance or, obviously, if the decree of permanent injunction in favour of the first petitioner, itself is reversed in favour of Respondent no.5.
16. In view of the discussion above, this petition is disposed of with the direction that proceedings initiated under Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. against both parties, be continued to their logical conclusion, with the purpose of ensuring that peace is maintained by both sides. However, the disposal of this petition is also with the observation that proceedings with regard to apprehension of breach of peace would be enforced to ensure Sorot Gaurav 2014.05.12 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.27688 of 2013 -:12:- mind also the fact that respondent No.5 has been so far restrained by the Civil Court from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, by a Civil Court decree in the petitioners' favour, till the same is either recovered or modified by any order or judgement in civil proceedings.
( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )
May 7, 2014 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Sorot Gaurav
2014.05.12 14:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document