- (1.) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, is for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2002 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Hisar, whereby the revision, filed against the order, dated 27.6.2001 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hansi, granting status quo, has been allowed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Sub Divisional Magistrate's order was set aside, as a civil suit was pending with respect to the same property. The civil suit, however, has been adjourned sine die, and the respondents, who are plaintiffs therein, are not interested in its revival. It is further contended that mere pendency of the civil suit is a ground insufficient to oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, conferred under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.
(2.) The order, attaching land in dispute, was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hansi pursuant to the directions, issued by this Court, ordering him to inquire as to whether, passing of an order, under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C, was necessary. The Magistrate, vide order dated 27.6.2001, directed the parties to maintain status quo and thereafter vide order dated 7.11.2001, directed attachment of the land in dispute.
(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide the impugned order, set aside the order, granting status quo, on the ground that a civil suit was pending, and as the dispute primarily fell within the domain of civil Courts, the authority, under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C, had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and pass orders in respect thereof. I find no illegality, infirmity or such perversity as would warrant interference by this Court, in the exercise of powers, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. However, as the petitioner is the Gram Panchayat, that claims ownership of the land in dispute, and the respondents are allegedly unauthorised occupants, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application, before the civil Court, praying for recalling the order, whereby the civil suit has been adjourned sine die. In case, such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided, by the civil Court, in accordance with law, within 15 days of its filing. The Court shall thereafter ensure that the suit is decided expeditiously, preferably within one year. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file such appropriate application, praying for such interim relief, as may be available, in accordance with law. The present petition is dismissed, with the aforementioned liberty and directions.;