Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raja And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 March, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-8978 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision:March 26 , 2010
Raja and others ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma,Advocate
for the petitioners.
**
Sabina, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 10.3.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Jind (Annexure P3) and the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Jind (AnnexureP4) and further for directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to hand over possession of the disputed agricultural land to the petitioners.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of its order, read as under:-
"There is dispute between both the parties regarding ownership and possession of the land comprised in khewat No. 261/247 and Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Khatoni No. 292/293 situated in village Rag Khera. In order to avoid the complications between the parties SHO Police Station Sadar, Jind submitted the report on 7.4.2007 in the shape of calendara before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind submitting that both the parties are claiming their rights to harvest the wheat crop and they have been challaned under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. As there is apprehension of breach of peace, he prayed for taking action under Section 145 Cr.P.C and to appoint receiver. The Sub Divisional Magistrate called the report from Naib Tehsildar, Alewa and after hearing both the parties and going through the report of Naib Tehsil, SHO Police Station Sadar Jind attached the disputed land under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Alewa as receiver vide order dated 18.4.2007. Aggrieved with the said order Baru etc. filed the revision petition in the Sessions Court. Vide order dated 7.12.2007 the revision petition was allowed and after setting aside the impugned order, matter was referred back to learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter fresh on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after considering their respective claims. After that the then Sub Divisional Magistrate Sh.Prem Chand, HCS vide order dated 10.3.2009 passed the order maintaining the order dated 18.4.2007 as it is .
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the civil litigation was pending between the parties, the criminal proceedings would liable to be dropped. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 3 of U.P. And others AIR 1985 Supreme Court 472 wherein it was held as under:-
"When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S.145 of the Code, would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a 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 as 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."
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
In the present case, a dispute arose between the parties regarding ownership and possession of the land in dispute. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide impugned order dated 10.3.2009 appointed Naib Tehsildar as a Receiver. The dispute between the parties was decided by the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.1989. As per the same, the first party i.e. private respondents were held to be owners in possession of 1/3rd share out of total land whereas the petitioners were held to be in possession of 1/6th share out of the total land. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 7 of the impugned order held as under:- Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 4
"It is contended by both the parties that possession of the suit land was taken from them by the receiver and at that relevant time when the land was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C. they were in possession of the suit land. No doubt, as is mentioned in the revision petition filed by Raja Civil suit titled as Daya Nand etc. vs. Tek Ram is pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Jind in which they were sought the decree dated 13.9.1989 as null and void whereas the first party Bishna etc. is relying upon the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1999. A perusal of revenue record placed on the file in the shape of copy of jamabndies and mutation reveals that both the parties are co-sharers and none of them has been shown as exclusive possession over the suit land at any point of time. During the course of arguments, both the parties have admitted that partition proceedings are also pending before the appropriate authorities and no partition has taken place as yet. No document has been placed on the file by any of the party to prove their exclusive possession over the suit land at the time when order under Section 145 Cr.P.C was passed and receiver was appointed. Faced with the situation I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Jind."
This Court in para 6 of its judgment in Manoj vs. Prem Lal, 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 941, held as under:-
"Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provision of law are not complied with and when the High court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court."
In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or the abuse of process of Court which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners, are sound reasons and call for no interference.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Sabina) Judge March 26, 2010 arya Crl.Misc. No.M-8978 of 2010 (O&M) 6