J.B.GARG, J. - (1.) NACHHATAR Singh, Sant Gurbachan Singh sons of Niranjan Singh and Harnish Kaur daughter of Nachhatar Singh all residents of village Ojhan District Patiala have challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 30.7.1993 quashing the proceedings pending under Sections 145(1) and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Executive Magistrate, Patiala.
(2.) THE petitioners have alleged that they are owners in possession of the land and a dispute arose between the petitioners on one side and Chanan Singh and Malook Singh on the other side; that the petitioners filed a civil suit for possession and it was decreed in their favour by Sub Judge Patiala on 12.9.1985; that an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on 14.10.1986 and the second appeal attempted by Chanan Singh and Malook Singh was dismissed by the High Court on 8.4.1987 (Annexure P-2), that the petitioners received possession of the land in question in execution proceedings but again the respondents attempted to dispossess them and through police report dated 16.3.1991 proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated; that the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has wrongly accepted the revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and vacated the order of the Executive Magistrate pertaining to attachment of the property; that the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate dated 12.4.1991 be restored; that there is a report Rojnamacha Annexure P-5 that as a consequence of the warrants of possession issued by the civil Court possession of the land in question was delivered to the present petitioners on 2.8.90 and it was thereafter that the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated by SHO of Police-Station Julkan on 18.3.1991 (Annexure R-1) The facts as given above shows that Nachhatar Singh and others or in other words the present petitioners obtained a decree of the Civil Court which was affirmed by the first appellate Court as well as in the Regular Second Appeal and it was thereafter that they received the possession in execution proceedings and once a claimant or a party comes in possession of a disputed property through lawful means it shall not be appropriate to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh. It has been observed in Darya and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors, 1991(2) C.L.R. 268, that if a party is in actual possession of the land in dispute but still there is likelihood of breach of peace, then the only appropriate action would be to resort to security proceedings under Section 107 of the Code. In these circumstances, the interference of this Court in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 30.7.1993, is not called for and the present revision is dismissed.;