IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.10853 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 16, 2010 SANTOKH SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. SS Deol, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.4.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran, initiating proceedings under Sections 145/146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. Challenge is also to order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by the revisional court; namely, Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Vide order (Annexure P-3), the Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction that there is strong apprehension of breach of peace regarding dispute between the parties, in relation to possession of land. The Criminal Misc. No.10853 -M of 2009 2 conclusion has been drawn on the basis of a report furnished by the police to the effect that serious offence might be committed, leading to loss of life. It has further been noticed that when the matter came up for hearing on 17.4.2008 before the Magistrate, the parties were present in person. The supporters of party No.2-Santokh Singh engaged in heated arguments with party No.1-Patwant Kaur and her representatives. They did not even hesitate to quarrel and give threats in the presence of the Presiding Officer. Police officials had to be called to control the situation so that no physical harm or injury was caused. A revision was carried, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-5), on the ground that it was not maintainable. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an order directing maintenance of status quo, as is evident from order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran. The contention is that in view of order for maintenance of status quo, proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, could not have been initiated. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the maintainability of proceedings is concerned, this court has adjudicated on the issue while dealing with Crl. Rev. 210 of 2006 (Rati Mohd. And others v. Hasan Mohd. And others) decided on 11.1.2010. The following has been held while relying on the judgment rendered in Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs. State and another, 1994(3) RCR 217:- Criminal Misc. No.10853 -M of 2009 3 “From the above extracted portion, it transpires that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when claim or title are not in dispute and the parties of their own showing are co- owners and there is no partition, one cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and ask the other to act in accordance with law. Where the dispute is not on the right of possession but on the question of possession, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under Section 145 Cr.P.C. While the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are for public peace and tranquility, Section 145 Cr.P.C. relates to disputes regarding possession between parties concerning any land or water or boundaries thereof. There being no dispute of title between the parties, the only claim to be decided would be if one of the parties had been forcibly or wrongly dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the information was received by the Magistrate. In my considered opinion, taking a cue from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Chand Sachdeva's case (supra), portion of which has been reproduced above, even in a case where both the parties to the lis under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are co-sharers, the Magistrate is empowered to see if one of the parties has been forcibly or wrongly disposed within two months next before the date on which the information was received by the Magistrate. In a case of co-sharers, the title is not the dispute. Criminal Misc. No.10853 -M of 2009 4 Dispute can be in regard to possession, in the absence of partition. In such a case, dispute is not on the right to possession but on the question of possession. If one party is in possession of a portion of property/property as a co-sharer, the other co-sharer cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully. In such circumstances, Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under Section 145 Cr.P.C.” Other than the law on the issue, as referred to above, the Magistrate has clearly recorded his satisfaction that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. In fact, the Magistrate himself was the eye witness to the threats being given in his court, in his presence. Considering the above, I find no reason to interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is dismissed. February 16, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?