MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THE three petitioners, namely, Ram Dhari son of Parbhu Manga son of Seeba and Manga son of Datu, residents of village Dhansoli, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal, have approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They claim that, under political pressure, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, have been initiated with regard to a large parcel of land through the instrumentality of the Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Panipat, vide his report dated 15th August, 1982 (Annexure P.2) on which Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, passed the impugned order dated 19th August, 1982 (Annexure P.3) initiating such proceedings.
(2.) THE subject of dispute as disclosed therein is Killa Nos. 1 to 129 measuring 587 acres of land situated in village Dhansoli. Now, according to the petitioners, this subject of dispute had already been subjected to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which were settled finally by this court in Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 1967, decided on 5th February, 1969. The party found in possession of the subject of dispute is no other than the petitioners. Allegedly, even on breach of the aforesaid order, Criminal Original No. 69 of 1969 was filed in this Court, which was decided on 20th October, 1970 reaffirming the view that the dispute had been settled.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have challenged the contention of the petitioners that the subject of dispute was the same regarding which the dispute of possession was settled by the High Court or that the present petitioners represent the party who was found successful in that litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with this position, has not been able to satisfy me that the present three petitioners were the respondents in Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 1967. However, he asserts that the present supporting respondent Nos. 33 to 43 are those persons. As it is, there is considerable dispute on facts. This Court cannot clear the webs so woven so as to make up its mind whether it is a case requiring interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Thus, it is to be left to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to treat the aforesaid objections of the petitioners or even those of the supporting respondents as preliminary and decide as to what is the impact of the litigation which culminated in the High Court, in which both the parties allege to have indulged.;