Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh in revision whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of one Jangir Singh and upheld the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the SDM Tibbi in Cr.Case No.3/2002 whereby the learned Executive Magistrate whilst deciding the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. directed that the possession of the land in question be handed over to the respondent No.2.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the learned Executive Magistrate fell into grave error in declaring the possession over the property to be that of party No.2. He submits that it was beyond the scope of powers of learned Executive Magistrate to have declared the party No.2 to be in possession of the property in question and thus, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. He relies on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan & Ors. reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2359, Ranbir Singh v. Dablir Singh & Ors. reported in 2002 Cr.L.R. (SC) 352, Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Budey & Anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1504 and prays that the impugned orders be quashed and a direction be given to appoint a receiver over the property in question and the parties be directed to approach the civil court for seeking redressal of their grievances. He further submits that there was no finding regarding any apprehension of breach of peace in relation to the dispute regarding the property in question and therefore also, the impugned orders are grossly illegal and amount to a gross abuse of process of the court.
(3.) Per contra, Shri B.S.Sandhu learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 Jangeer Singh S/o Jagtar Singh submits that the person named Jangeer Singh whom the petitioners represent was party No.1 before the learned SDM, Tibbi. As a matter of fact, Jangeer Singh was an imposter and his actual name was Kashmir Singh. He assumed a fake identity in order to usurp the property belonging to the respondent No.2. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him under the directions of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. An inquiry was held wherein his identity was established to be Kashmir Singh S/o Kala Singh. He was also convicted in a case at Punjab for the offences under Sections 365 and 342 IPC under the identity of Kashmir Singh S/o Kala Singh. Learned counsel further submits that it was the admitted case of the party No.1 (the so called Jangeer Singh) that the respondent Jangeer Singh took possession of the property in question and raised crops thereupon. He submits that if during the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the apprehension of breach of peace fades away, the learned Executive Magistrate is duty bound to hand back the possession of the property to the person from whom it was taken by the receiver or the person who was wrongly dispossessed from the property before two months from the date of initiation of proceedings. He contends that in the case at hand, the learned Executive Magistrate recorded a finding after due appreciation of the material available on the record that the possession over the property was that of the party No.2 Jangeer Singh S/o Jagtar Singh. The finding recorded by the learned SDM was upheld by the revisional court by a well reasoned order and thus, no interference is called for in the orders passed by the subordinate courts.;