MUKAND SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by one Mukand Singh and his three grandsons namely Surjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh sons of Naranjan Singh, for quashing of order dated 13-7-1995 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, initiating proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. on a complaint made on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, and the order appointing Tehsildar, Talwandi Sabo, as Receiver of the land in dispute.

(2.) Quashing has been sought on three grounds, namely, (i) that civil litigation in regard to the land in dispute is pending on one side between Mukand Singh and Ajit Singh etc. and on the other side, suit has been filed by respondents against petitioners 2 to 4. Mukand Singh filed suit on 4-4-1995 for declaration and injunction alleging that Mutation No. 2335 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 on the basis of writing dated 3-1-1995 allegedly to be an exchange is null and void and not binding on him. An application vas filed by him under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, in which ex parte injunction order was passed on 5-7-1995 restraining them from taking forcible possession from Mukand Singh. The other suit, a reference of which has been made by counsel for the petitioners, is by respondents 2 and 3 filed on 6-5-1995 against petitioners 2 to 4, restraining them from interfering in their possession. In that suit, order of status-quo has been passed by the Civil Court. It was during the pendency of these two suits that complaint dated 2-7-1995 was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for initiating proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. and order dated 13-7-1995 was passed.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has contended that parallel proceedings in regard to question of possession of land are pending and therefore, initiation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. is an abuse of process of the Court. In this regard, he has cited judgements in AIR 1985 SC 472 : (1985 Cri LJ 752) and 1994 (3) RCR 217. Counsel has further contended that Mukand Singh, petitioner No. 1 was pot made a party to the proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P.C. and he being a necessary party and not having been joined as such, the proceedings have to be quashed on this score alone. In support of this proposition, he cited 1990 Crl LR 255 (MP) : ILR (1893) Cal 29 and ILR (1901) Cal 446. Finally, he contended that order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is a non-speaking one and has been passed without application of mind and therefore, this petition has to be allowed and the proceedings have to be quashed.