Crl. Misc. No. M- 8899 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 8899 of 2008 Date of Decision:May 05, 2009 Hardeep Kaur and others ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.S.C.Pathela ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5, 7 and 9. *** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashing of order dated 12.2.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phool, Bathinda vide which proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were rejected. Police of police station, Dayalpura presented calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on ground that both the parties i.e. petitioners and respondents were claiming ownership and possession over the property in Crl. Misc. No. M- 8899 of 2008 {2} dispute and there was chances of breach of peace. Vide the impugned order, the calendra has been rejected as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampur Phool was of the opinion that Hardeep Kaur was not daughter of Chint Kaur. Rather Hardeep Kaur-petitioner No. 1 in her affidavit dated 20.7.2007 had described Chint Kaur as her maternal aunt. The inheritance of Darbara Singh was sanctioned in favour of his natural heirs Boota Singh, Mohinder Singh Balvir Singh, Darsho Kaur, Chhinder Singh and Binder Kaur. With regard to the inheritance of Chint Kaur Mutation No. 1364 was sanctioned in favour of Boota Singh, Mohinder Singh, Balvir Singh, Darsho Kaur, Chhinder Singh and Binder Kaur. Will executed by Chint Kaur in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3 (Annexure P-1) was later cancelled vide Annexure P-2 dated 8.9.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Will Annexure P-1 petitioner No. 1 has been described by the executant Chint Kaur as her daughter. Although the said Will was later on cancelled by the executant yet the fact remains that petitioner No. 1 was described as her daughter by the executant. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has submitted that civil litigation is pending between the parties. Civil suit No. 99 dated 11.6.2007 for permanent injunction has been filed by petitioners No. 1 and 2 against Boota Singh and Mohinder Singh claiming themselves to be the owner in possession of property measuring 35 Kanals 19 marlas. Vide order dated 15.10.2008 Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Phul dismissed the application for permanent injunction. Petitioner No. 2 has filed another civil suit No. 140 of 18.7.2007 seeking permanent injunction with regard to the property originally owned by Chint Kaur against Boota Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M- 8899 of 2008 {3} Mohinder Singh. Vide order dated 15.10.2008 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phul dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel has further submitted that since civil litigation is pending between the parties proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can not continue and are liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahar Jahan and other vs. State of Delhi and others 2006(2) RCR (Criminal)80. Since civil litigation is pending between the parties, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not continue. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.2.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phool, Bathinda calls for no interference. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2009 PARAMJIT