RAMRATAN Vs. LALBIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of CrPC is directed against the order dated 10.10.2000 passed by SDM, Sirmour, in Cr. Case No. 99/90. Petitioner Ramratan having purchased the disputed lands Khasra No. 559 area 1.93 acre and Khasra No. 160 area 0.45 acre in village Duvgawan, Tehsil Sirmour, remained in its possession. Since the title of the petitioner was disputed by Vindeshwari Prasad and respondent Kamta Prasad, he had to file C.S. No. 104-A/72 before the Second Civil Judge Class II, Rewa. The suit aforesaid was decreed for possession. The appeals preferred by the said Vindeshwari Prasad and respondent Kamta Prasad were dismissed. Finally in execution of the decree, possession of aforesaid lands was restored to the petitioner on 6.1.1990. Thereafter again the respondents on 24.7.1990 tried to create disturbance in peaceful possession of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed petition under section 145, CrPC before SDM, Sirmour. It was registered as Cr. Case No. 99/90. After passing a preliminary order, notices to respondents were issued. Respondents resisted the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, the SDM directed attachment of disputed lands under section 146, CrPC vide panchnama (Ex. P-5), the police effected the attachment on 31.7.1991 and lands aforesaid were given to the receiver. Finally, the SDM vide impugned order dated 10.10.2000 held that now there seems to be no dispute likely to cause breach of peace, therefore, terminating the proceedings under section 145, CrPC, directed restoration of possession of disputed lands in favour of respondents. Further, it has been observed that the petitioner may seek remedy from civil Court for restoration of possession.

(2.) IT has been contended that petitioner purchased the disputed lands vide registered sale deed of the year 1964. It was a purchase from Vindeshwari Prasad. Since the respondent obstructed the petitioner from entering into the possession, C.S. No. 104-A/72 was filed before the Second Civil Judge Class II, Rewa. Although the suit was resisted by the respondents yet it was decreed and the appeals preferred remained dismissed. Finally per warrant of possession, possession of disputed land was delivered to the petitioner on 6.1.1990. He continuously remained in possession, however, on 24.7.1990 respondents tried to create obstruction. Lodging a report dated 24.7.1990 with the police, he initiated proceedings under section 145 of CrPC. Attachment under section 146 of CrPC was effected from him and at no point of time, respondents ever remained in possession of the disputed lands.

(3.) THERE had been a long litigation relating to title and possession. C.S. No. 104-A/72 filed by the petitioner was decreed against the respondents. They remained unsuccessful in assailing the judgment-decree passed by the Civil Judge in C.S. No. 104-A/72. As per warrant of possession issued by Executive Court, possession of the disputed lands was delivered to the petitioner on 6.1.1990. Since on 24.7.1990 the respondents tried to obstruct the petitioner in peaceful possession, he filed a complaint under section 145 of CrPC. In Banshpalti and another v. Ramdeen and another in M.Cr.C. No. 2396/95, a Bench of this Court observed as under : I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is clear that once the title of the petitioner has already been decided and they have been placed in possession of the lands in dispute in the year 1989, the respondent No. 1, Ramdeen could not have claimed possession over the lands for a considerable period as was stated in the police report, which was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amarpatan. There is every reason to hold that a person who has been placed in possession pursuant to a decree has a right and title to remain in continuous possession of the suit property. Therefore, the starting of proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after determination of the rights of the petitioners by a civil Court finally, would certainly be an abuse of the process of the Court. The parties cannot be sent to litigation time and again for the same cause whether it be criminal or civil. On facts the impugned order passed by SDM restoring the possession of the disputed land to the respondents is grossly improper, unjust and contrary to the facts. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power under section 482 of CrPC quashes the proceedings under section 145, CrPC and directs restoration of possession of disputed lands to the petitioner.