R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THIS case has a checkered history. The dispute between the parties over a property initially reached this Court, when an FIRNo. 208 dated 26.7.2006 was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the allegations of tress -pass etc. could not be made against them, they being owners in possession of the property in dispute. Subsequently, two more FIRs were registered at the instance of the respondents under the same Sections and virtually with the same allegations. Finding that the police apparently was acting to favour the respondents, the proceedings in all the FIRs were stayed as the issue in regard to ownership and possession of this property had also been agitated in a civil proceedings by filing a civil suit. It is thereafter that the respondents adopted yet another mode and initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hansi. Apprehending breach of peace, the S.D.M. ordered attachment of the property under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and appointed Tehsildar, Hansi, as a Receiver. This order of Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged before this Court through Criminal Misc. No. 81057 M of 2006. Petitioner, Rajesh Lamba filed yet another Criminal Misc. PetitionNo. 4072 M of 2007 for registering a case against the respondents with the allegations that they were using Gundas to threat and dis -possess him and other family members from the land, which was subject matter of dispute. All the petitions were combined together for hearing. The counsel first made submission in petitionNo. 81057 M of 2007, where proceedings under Sections 145, 146 Cr.P.C. were under challenge.
(2.) THE primary submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. could not be continued once the matter was taken to or was pending in the civil Court. It was further contended that the allegations made in the FIRs would basically dependent upon the outcome of the civil proceedings. Allegation was that the petitioners had tress -passed into the land owned and possessed by the respondents. Obviously, if civil Court was to decide that the land was in possession or in the ownership of the petitioners, then these allegations of tress -pass would fail. During the course of proceedings being held by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., possession of either side could not be clearly established and as such, a Tehsildar was appointed as a Receiver. Apprehending serious breach of peace, an interim arrangement, as ordered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, was directed to be continued. All the petitions, challenging the FIRs or the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., were admitted. Further proceedings under all these cases were stayed except the civil suit. It was viewed by this Court that any observation made would prejudice the case of either side and as such, the interim arrangement be continued and the case in regard to possession or ownership of the property be decided by the civil Court. Directions were accordingly issued to the civil Court to decide the same within a period six months. All the petitions, challenging the FIRs as well as proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be admitted on March 8, 2007. The reasons to adopt this procedure can be noticed from the observations of this Court in the order dated March 8, 2007, which are as under: If the prosecution of the petitioners is permitted at this stage, it was bound to prejudice them and it could be construed that they were not in possession and as such, could be blamed for tress -passing even if they were the owners. It was accordingly put to the counsel for the parties that in fairness, further proceedings in all the petitions, criminal as well as civil should await the outcome of the civil suit which is in progress in regard to possession of this land. If the Civil Court ultimately finds that the petitioners are in possession, it may not be possible to prosecute them in the FIRs impugned in this petition. On the other hand, if Civil Court was to return the finding that the petitioners were not in possession, then they would be liable for being proceeded against for the offence of tress -pass. The counsel for the parties could not offer any objection to the proposed course that proceedings in all the petitions should await the outcome of the civil suits. During the pendency of these proceedings, status -quo in regard to possession of the land in dispute was also ordered to be maintained.
(3.) THE petitioners have now filed Criminal Misc. No. 89754 of 2007, disclosing that civil suit titled 'Rajesh Lamba v. Surajbhan and Anr. which was being tried, has been decided in favour of the petitioners holding that they are owners in possession of the suit land and injunction has been granted in their favour. Not only that, the civil suit filed by the respondents titled Pardeep Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. v. Rakesh and Ors. stands dismissed being barred by the provisions of Benami Act. The copies of these two judgments are now annexed with this miscellaneous petition as Annexures P -19 and P -20. It is, thus, prayed that all the petitions now pending before this Court and which have been admitted be decided in terms of the judgment rendered by the civil Court.;