Pankaj Naqvi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh -I, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned A.G.A. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 4/2002, under sections 145/146(1), Cr.P.C. and the order dated 10.2.2015, to the extent it decides the issue of jurisdiction. Background facts are as under:
(2.) THE proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated on a police report dated 5.10.2002 of P.S. Kotwali City, Bijnor over the disputed property, i.e., a grove (9.7 acres in village Daranagar, Bijnor), between respondent No. 4 and his brother Tejendra Singh Baxi. An order dated 11.10.2002 came to be passed by S.D.M., Bijnor under section 146(1), Cr.P.C., wherein the aforesaid property was attached and the S.H.O. was directed to handover the same in the custody of a Superdagar till appropriate orders are obtained from a Competent Court. The order dated 11.10.2002 was challenged by respondent No. 4 in Criminal Revision Nos. 24/2003 and 25/2003, under sections 145/146, Cr.P.C. wherein interim orders were passed on 20.3.2003. The Criminal Revision No. 25/2003 was allowed on 28.1.2014 and the order dated 24.10.2002 was set aside. The order dated 28.1.2004 was impugned in Criminal Revision No. 728/2004 before this Court. The possession of the attached property was given to the applicant under a superdaginama dated 24.10.2002. The applicant claims to have furnished the statements of accounts to the Court concerned. The proceedings under sections 145/146, Cr.P.C. eventually came to be disposed of in terms of a compromise entered between the parties (O.P. Nos. 4 and 5) before the Consolidation Officer in Criminal Revision No. 728/2004 on 7.3.2005 before this Court. The O.P. No. 4 filed an application dated 3.5.2007 before the S.D.M., Bijnor claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,50,000/ - alongwith interest @ 18 % from the applicant, a receiver from the earnings while the property in dispute was in his possession. The application was contested by filing objections dated 20.6.2007. By order dated 23.10.2007, the Tehsildar, Bijnor was directed to submit his report. The Tehsildar issued a notice to the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply dated 3.4.2008. The applicant filed applications dated 12.2.2014 and 27.1.2015 raising a plea of jurisdiction that once proceedings under 145/146, Cr.P.C. had come to an end, an application for claiming compensation is not maintainable. The Magistrate on 10.2.2015 rejected the applications filed by the applicant. The contention urged is that once the proceedings under sections 145/146, Cr.P.C. came to be disposed of in terms of compromise in Criminal Revision No. 728/2004 on 7.3.2005, an application for compensation at the instance of respondent No. 4, is not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as such. Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 on the strength of the judgment of this Court in the cases of Jangi Lal v. Dwaraka Prasad,, 1987 (2) ACC 228 and that of Lalmani v. State of U.P.,, 1990 (2) JIC 1110, submitted that the status of a receiver was that of a custodia legis of the property as he takes possession on behalf of the Court, in order to safeguard its interest for the benefit of the person, who ultimately, is found entitled to its possession. He contends that this necessarily pre -supposes that the Receiver has to furnish the statement of accounts of earnings/expenditure involved in the maintenance of the property to the Court concerned.
(3.) THE moot question involved is as to whether in proceedings arising out of section 145/146, Cr.P.C., is it open for the learned Magistrate to direct the Receiver to compensate for damages in respect of misfeasance while the property was under his custodia legis.;