- (1.) ON a report from the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpura, proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against three parties, namely, Tej Kaur and Shamsher Kaur, Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, and Surjit Singh. In these proceedings preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, on 10th October, 1973, and the land measuring 94 bighas 13 biswas which was the subject-matter of this dispute was attached, as there was an apprehension of breach of the peace. It was directed that the Naib Tehsildar, Rajpura, should take possession of the land and manage it by auctioning it on cash payment. Gurdev Singh, one of the parties in this dispute, has now filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing these proceedings.
(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner two main grounds have been urged. It is firstly pointed out that the case was adjourned six times between November 1973 and June 1974 without taking any proceedings and that this amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. The second argument canvassed before me is that in the preliminary order the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not stated the grounds on the basis of which he felt satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.
(3.) FROM the affidavit of Surjit Singh, one of the respondents, it emerges that by the preliminary order the parties were directed to appear on 15th November, 1973 and to file their written statements, but before this could be done a stay order was obtained from the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on 3rd November. 1973. This order was obtained in a revision petition filed by the petitioner. Subsequently Tej Kaur and Shamsher Kaur who were also party to these proceedings filed another revision petition and the case could, therefore, not proceed till 26-4-1974. From the affidavit of Surjit Singh it emerges that the delay in the proceedings was to a large extent caused by the parties obtaining stay orders from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, and in this situation the fact that the proceedings could not be conducted expeditiously would not furnish a ground for quashing the proceedings.;