Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:1.7.2010 Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus Swaran Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.SP Soi,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J Crl.M.No.32562 and 32563 of 2010 are allowed and documents Annexures P2 to P4 are taken on record. Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010. Petitioner-Gurdev Singh (son of respondent no.1) has filed the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C., against his father, mother and brothers-respondents 1 to 5, for setting aside the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (A) Patiala, whereby criminal revision filed by Nasib Singh (respondent no.1) and others was allowed and the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura was set aside. In the order dated 13.8.2009, impugned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura had allowed the petition under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioner Gurdev Singh and a receiver was appointed to take care of the land in Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010(O&M) 2 dispute and wheat crop sown thereupon. In brief, the facts are that petitioner-Gurdev Singh filed an application under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., against his father Nasib Singh, mother Mohinder Kaur and brothers Gian Singh, Swaran Singh and Ravel Singh and prayed that the proceedings be initiated over the described land situated in Village Nandgarh and Village Nanhera belonging to Nasib Singh because the lands being ancestral and applicant having coparcenary rights was in cultivating possession of the same. The petitioner also stated that the respondents had attacked his house and beaten his wife on 22.12.2008 and an application before the police had also been made in that regard. The stand of the respondents was that Nasib Singh-respondent father did not gave any share out of the aforesaid properties to petitioner son-Gurdev Singh and vide change of ownership deed dated 5.1.2008 had transferred his 28 bighas of land in Village Nanhera in favour of his other two sons Swaran Singh and Gian Singh and with regard to the land situated in Village Nandgarh measuring 13 bighas 18 biswas and 13 biswasis was also transferred in the name of Ravel Singh. Four bighas of land in Village Nanhera was sold by Nasib Singh vide sale deed dated 5.1.2008 to one Karam Singh son of Phul Singh with possession. Remaining land in Village Nanhera was shown to be owned and possessed by Nasib Singh in revenue record. Gurdev Singh-petitioner though had a share in this remaining land of Nasib Singh (95 years old), but latter did not wish to give his share to Gurdev Singh-petitioner because he was in the habit of making false complaints against family Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010(O&M) 3 members and had also filed a civil suit. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, relying on the report dated 7.9.2009 of SHO PS Sadar, Rajpura made the remaining area in Village Nanhera in the name of Nasib Singh, subject matter of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., and appointed Tehsildar Ghanaur as Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C., to take care of the land and the crops sown over the same. Aggrieved against the same respondents (Nasib Singh etc.) filed a revision before the the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed that Gurdev Singh was disowned by Nasib Singh from entire property and a publication to that effect was also got published in a newspaper on 22.12.2007 and the applications/complaints filed by Gurdev Singh and his wife were found to be false. The learned Revisional Court also noticed that the SHO PS Sadar Rajpura had given an earlier report dated 4.7.2009 recommending that no case under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., was required as Nasib Singh was owner in possession of the land and there was no document to show possession of petitioner Gurdev Singh. The learned Revisional Court has also found that the subsequent report dated 7.9.2009 was a procured one and that it was not in dispute that civil suit filed by Gurdev Singh with regard to his right in land in dispute was pending where no injunction was granted. Accordingly, learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura. Hence the present revision petition. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Crl.R.No.1006 of 2010(O&M) 4 could not dispute that in the civil suit filed by petitioner Gurdev Singh no ad interim injunction has been granted in his favour. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that earlier the SHO PS Sadar Rajpura vide his report dated 4.7.2009 had recommended for filing of the petition filed by the petitioner and as such the subsequent report submitted by police apprehending law and order problem was a procured one. Petitioner also could not produce any evidence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to show that he was in possession of the land in question. Moreover, no definite finding can be recorded on the basis of documents on record so far. The petitioner, as already noticed above, has filed a civil suit to prove the ancestral and coparcenary nature of the property, which the respondents dispute. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed in limine. 1.7.2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) joshi. JUDGE