Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rev.Pankaj Anand Malik vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 11916 of 2008 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 11916 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2013
Rev.Pankaj Anand Malik
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
None for respondents No.4 and 5.
Mr.J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for
for respondent No.6.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of calandra (Annexure P-1) and order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P-2).
Respondents No.4 and 5 had sought initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Vide Annexure P-1, parties were summoned and till then, it was ordered that a receiver be appointed qua the property in question. Vide Annexure P-2, Sub Divisional Magistrate has held as under:-
Devi Anita "Both the parties were heard and the documents annexed 2013.11.15 15:08 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 11916 of 2008 (O&M) 2 with the calandra by both the parties were perused, from which it is apparent that both the parties claim their respective right over the property in dispute. Therefore, it is necessary to be decided as to which party was in possession of the property, 2 months earlier to police report dated 3.3.2008, so that fear of disturbance of peace does not remain. Therefore, by proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., I attach the property in dispute under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and appoint Naib Tehsildar Ludhiana (East) as Receiver and direct that he should take possession of the above said property and till further order, he should look after this property and should immediately submit report to the undersigned. The file be put up on 11.4.2008."
Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, civil litigation qua the property in question before the civil court has been decided in favour of respondent No.6. However, appeal against the judgment/ decree passed by the civil court was pending. Now the said appeal has also been decided in favour of respondent No.6 vide judgment/ decree dated 30.3.2013. Application moved by Bishop Re.Rockes Sandhu to be impleaded as a party in the civil suit was dismissed. Present petitioner has derived his right from Bishop Re.Rockes Sandhu. Admittedly, SAO is pending in this regard against the order, whereby, application moved by Bishop Re.Rockes Sandhu for being Devi Anita impleaded as party in the civil suit was dismissed. 2013.11.15 15:08 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 11916 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Since in the present case civil court was of seized of the matter qua the property in question, Sub Divisional Magistrate should not have initiated proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. In any case impugned order was passed on 31.3.2008 and no breach of peace had allegedly occurred since then till today.
Keeping in view the above facts, impugned order dated 31.3.2008 Annexure P-2 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned calandra dated 3.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) are set aside.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 13, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.11.15 15:08 I am approving this document Chandigarh