S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') relates to quashment of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 25th February, 1989 (Annexure P2), whereby on revision the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karnal on 29th August, 1988 (Annexure P1) for attachment of the land in dispute and appointment of Receiver under Section 146(I) of the Code was set aside.
(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were initiated on 30th June, 1988, on the allegations that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of the land in dispute, situated within the revenue estate of village Gitalpur, and there was apprehension of breach of peace. Notice under Section 145(1) of the Code was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in these proceedings. Both the parties appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 11th July, 1988. They filed written statements and documents concerning proof that they were in possession of the land in dispute. During pendency of these proceedings, Darshan Singh, member of one of the parties, filed a civil suit on 16th July, 1988, and on 20th July, 1988 the Civil Court ordered both the parties to maintain status quo. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, vide his order dated 29th August, 1988 came to the conclusion that there was a dispute between both the parties in respect of the land in dispute, and, there was apprehension of breach of peace. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, while taking into consideration the order passed by the Civil Court, directing the parties to maintain status quo, passed the order of attachment of the land in dispute under Section 146 of the Code, and appointed S.H.O. Butana (within whose jurisdiction the land in dispute fell) as Superdar. Both the parties were further directed to get a decision from the Civil Court about possession of the land-in-dispute in order to avoid duplication of proceedings concerning determination of possession. The Superdar was directed to deliver the possession of the land, in dispute, in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court, to the party concerned. Counsel for the parties were heard.
(3.) THE impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge has mainly been assailed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had independent jurisdiction to continue proceedings, under Sections 145 and 146(1) of the Code, irrespective of the pendency of civil litigation between the parties concerning the same subject-matter, and that the order of attachment and appointment of Receiver, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, in the instant case was perfectly legal and valid, and the same could not be legally set aside.;