V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of proceedings initiated vide Kalandra dated 1.2.1978 under Section 145, Cr.P.C. pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya.
(2.) IN brief the facts as stated in the petition are that S.H.O. Police Station Garhshankar, submitted a Kalandra stating therein that a dispute likely to indulge breach of peace exists between Amar Singh, Chairman, Old Trust of Sarai Jagiri Mal, Garhshankar (now respondent through the petitioner) and Brig Kushal Singh, President of present Managing Committee of Sarai Jagiri Mal, Garhshankar and Ram Singh (now respondent) Member Manager of previous Trust of Sarai Jagiri Mal, Garshankar over the possession of the said building known as Sarai of Jagiri Mal and the shops forming a part of the property. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, issued an usual notice under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereafter an order attachment of the property too was passed on 2.2.1978. The matter as finally decided by Sh. Sewak Singh, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, vide order dated 15.3.1978 in favour of the petitioner-Trust through late Sh. Amar Singh. In compliance with that order, possession of the property in dispute was handed over to the petitioner Trust by Tehsildar, Garshankar, on 19.7.1979. Meanwhile, Brig Kushal Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 51/18 of 23.6.1979/16.8.1979 against order dated 15.3.1978, which was decided in his favour on 20.4.1980 and the case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Criminal Revision No. 761 of 1980 filed against the said order was dismissed by this Court. Then the matter was taken up by Sh. G.S. Gains (Bains ?), SDM Dasuya, when he disposed it of finally by holding that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be initiated in this case at all. Aggrieved by this order, Criminal Revision No. 15/Add, of 1982 was filed before Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who accepted the same vide order dated 1.7.1983 and the case was again remanded for decision. The present petitioner challenged that order in this Court by way of Criminal Revision No. 1091 of 1983. The revision petition was dismissed and the matter again went before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya. Quashing has been sought on the ground that till date, no progress in the matter has been made and the case is pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the last six years, without there being decision on merits. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are purely preventive and provisional in nature so that the dispute could remain suspended till the parties get their rights agitated by a Civil Court. It has been held by the Patna High Court in Nathuni Sah and others v. Sk. Moharntnad Jan and others, 1987 Crl.L.J. 1239, that the continuance of a proceeding under Section 145 for a long time (about a decade) betrays the basic structure of the proceedings being apprehension of breach of peace, which is basically preventive and not punitive in nature. If an element of possession, in fact, has to be determined, then that deserves to be decided expeditiously as it inevolves an apprehension of breach of peace and preventive measures. A proceeding under Section 145 is distinguishable from the title suit which is a surer test of all the connected issues and just giving final stamp on the right of parties settling the dispute primarily once for all. Of course, in a proceeding under Section 145 the basis for claim of right and possession is a relevant factor but that is not the only factor and thus the finding of possession in fact is distinguishable from the findings and conclusions through the process of title suit. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court. As noticed, possession as delivered to the petitioner as far back as on 19.7.1979 and the proceedings were remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30.7.1984. for the last more than one decade, no decision has been given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, therefore continuance of the proceedings would be of no use.;