B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code) for quashing the proceedings under section 145 of the Code are that one Bachan Singh was the owner of the suit land. After his death, mutation in respect of his land was sanctioned in favour of Sukhvinder Kaur, who is the daughter of his brother, Jeet Singh, on the basis of a will. Gurnam Singh (respondent No. 1 in the present proceedings), his another, brother filed a suit challenging the will. That suit is pending. In that suit, order for maintaining status quo possession over the land in dispute has been passed. Gurnam Singh had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order by which the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Sukhvinder Kaur. He ordered that the proceedings be stayed as the police had instituted proceedings against Gurnam Singh and Gurdeep Singh on one side and Naranjan Singh and Jeet Singh on the other under section 107/51 of the Code. On the basis of Police Calendar, proceedings under section 145 of the Code were instituted in respect of the disputed land. Certain order was passed in those proceedings by the Executive Magistrate. Gurnam Singh challenged that order before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, by means of a revision petition. He accepted it and quashed the proceedings. Later on fresh proceedings under section 145 of the Code were instituted. Gurdeep Singh, who was party No. 1 in those proceedings, filed an application under section 146 of the Code for attachment of the disputed land. That application was contested by Jeet Singh and others i.e. party No. 2 and one of the grounds taken was that there was no dispute with respect to the possession. It was also stated that earlier Similar proceedings had been quashed. Party No. 1 contended before the Executive Magistrate that the quashment of the previous proceedings did not operate as res judicata in the case and as cognizance had been taken under section 145 (c) of the Code in the instance case, proceedings should continue. The learned Executive Magistrate agreed with the contention of party No. 1 and ordered that the proceedings under section 145 of the Code should continue as the dispute was with respect to possession. The application filed by party No. 2 was dismissed. Party No. 2 filed revision petition which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. It was dismissed on the ground that impugned order was an interim one. Still not feeling satisfied, party No. 2 has filed the present petition in this Court under section 482 of the Code.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when proceedings under section 145 of the Code was earlier quashed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated Ist February, 1983 (Annexure P.1), fresh proceedings under that provision could not have been instituted. In support of his contention he has cited Munawar Bhat v. Gulla Shah and others, AIR 1967 Jammu and Kashmir 129. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated Ist February, 1983 shows that the proceedings were quashed as it was a case of alleged joint possession. The ground taken by the learned Judge was that as the proceedings had been stayed by Deputy Commissioner, in appellate proceedings the police was not required to launch proceedings under section 145 of the Code. I am of the opinion that the above argument of the learned counsel has no force. In 'Munawar Bhat's case (supra) the previous proceedings were decided on merits. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the earlier proceedings only Gurnam Singh and Sukhvinder Kaur had been arrayed as opposing party out in the present case in addition to those persons there are other persons as opposing parties and, therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent proceedings have been instituted between the same parties. He further argued that in the present proceedings the dispute is with respect to specific Kharra numbers and, therefore, fresh proceedings under section 145 of the Code could be instituted. According to him the present case is not of joint possession. I am of the opinion that when there was fresh apprehension of breach of peace the police could institute proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The previous proceedings were not decided on merits but were dropped on a technical grounds. Now the dispute is with respect to specific Khasras and there is no question of joint possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners next argued that in the present case Gurnam Singh, one of the members of party No. 2 has already filed a civil suit in which order has been issued for maintaining status quo regarding possession. According to him, if any party thinks that he is in possession and is in danger of being dispossessed then his remedy is to approach the Civil Court and obtain proper orders. In support of his contention he has cited Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, (1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 43, 1985(1) CLR 521 (Supreme Court) wherein their lordships remarked :- "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should to be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court, for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation." In that case the suit had been decided by the trial court and only appeal was pending. In the present case the question of possession has not been decided upto this time by any court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Sardari Lal and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1980 CLR 248 wherein it was remarked :- "Also it deserves highlighting that at the instance of respondent No. 3 to 1, a civil suit for injunction stands instituted and is pending against the petitioner. In that suit, an interim order has been passed by the Civil Court to maintain status quo and that is operative for the while. In the presence of the said order and when the Civil Court was seized of the matter, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were not called for. At beat, if there was likelihood of the breach of peace, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could have proceeded against the parties under section 107 Cr.P.C. and which step, as per police report, was contemplated to be taken. Apparently, the question, as to which of the parties was in possession of the land in dispute, was the subject matter in a Civil Court as well and the present proceedings before an Executive Magistrate could not be initiated as a substitute thereof." However in that case Mohinder Singh v. Sh. Dilbagh Rai, 1979 P.L.R. 803 which is a Division Bench ruling, was not noticed. In that case the Division Bench remarked as follows :- "The third type of cases, that is, maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the civil suit is a situation in which a civil Court does not prima facie feel satisfied about any party being in possession of the subject matter of the suit. In such cases when both parties claim possession, dangerous situation can develop with the anxiety of both or any one of them to get into actual possession. If the situation deteriorates then the police or the Magistrate cannot act as silent spectators to witness the breach of the peace. If they act in such circumstances and the Magistrate attaches the subject matter of the dispute under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code then he would be acting to defend the maintenance of the status quo as ordered by the Civil Court.;