Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 January, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-1976 of 2013 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-1976 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 22, 2013.
Sher Singh and another
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Haryana and others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Randeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Karnal as well as the order dated 3.6.2011 passed by the court of Executive Magistrate/District Revenue Officer, Karnal arising out of the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Heard.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that claim of the petitioner for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has not been considered, so the impugned order be set aside.
It is the categorical finding by the lower appellate court that the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. were initiated qua khewat No.735/683, Khatauni No.1503, Khasra No.183/1, Killa No. 19 (8-0) whereas the claim of the revision petitioners (now the petitioners) is with respect to Rect. No.182 and Killa No.5 (8-0). Since the said land was not in Crl. Misc. No. M-1976 of 2013 (O&M) -: 2 :- dispute, there was no question of initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. with respect to that land, neither the proceedings have been initiated regarding this very khasra number. The counsel for the petitioners had made a statement on 7.12.2009 that they adopt the claim of Lakhwinder Kaur. The revision petition was preferred on 16.7.2011, after more than two years. Besides this, the petitioners never filed their claim to show that the khasra numbers to which they claim their right, should be involved in these proceedings. The khasra No.182//5(8-0) is not at all involved in proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. on which the petitioners assert their right. For these reasons, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Furthermore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that he was in possession of the disputed property two months prior to the initiation of those proceedings as enshrined under the proviso to Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. nor there is any evidence in the form of khasra girdawari to show the possession of the petitioners on said property.
No merit.
Dismissed.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] January 22, 2013. Judge kadyan