KARNAIL SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARNAIL Singh and others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) for quashing the order dated July 31, 1991 (Annexure P-1 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatinda and the entire proceedings initiated under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code. The material facts are as follows :-

(2.) KARNAIL Singh and Bakhttaur Singh petitioners, Kirpal Singh father of petitioners No 3 and 4, Hari Singh and Sher Singh were brothers and were joint owners, in equal share of land measuring 196 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Mehma Sirja, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, Sher Singh, who was un-married, executed a will regarding his 1/5th share of the land measuring 39 Kanals 10 Marlas in favour of Niha Kaur. After the death of Nihal Kaur respondents No. 3 to 6 claimed themselves to be her legal heirs and they filed a suit for joint possession of land measuring 196 kanals 15 Marlas and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in that suit from forcibly dispossessing them of the land in question. The civil suit was dismissed by Additional Seniors Sub-Judge, Bhatinda on 29.10.1983. An appeal was preferred against that judgment and decree which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda as per judgment dated 11.10.1984. Respondents No. 3 to 6 then preferred a Regular Second Appeal which was admitted and in which the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession until further orders. The petitioners alleged that they were legal heirs of Sher Singh deceased and mutation of his share of the land was already sanctioned in their favour. They were the owners in possession of the land in dispute. But, at the instance of respondents No. 3 to 6 Station House Officer, Police Station, Nahianwala forwarded a Calender under Section 145 of the Code with a request to attach the land in question to avoid breach of pace and occurrence of some serious nature. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the parties ordered attachment of the land in question and appointed Tehsildar, Bhatinda as receiver in the case. The petitioners have challenged this order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that litigation regarding subject-matter of dispute was already pending between the parties in the High Court by way of R.S.A. No. 2876 of 1984 in which order of status quo regarding possession was passed on 14.11.1984 so the passing of the impugned order was unwarranted. They were co-sharers in the property in dispute and proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code were uncalled for. There was no apprehension of breach of peace as both the parties had been proceeded against under Section 107/151 of the Code. There was no threat to peace and initiating of impugned proceedings was not proper.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.