Criminal Misc. No. M-5806 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5806 of 2011 Date of decision:- 23.2.2011 Amarjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 28.09.2010 whereby order dated 28.5.2008 dismissing the application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., has been affirmed. There is a dispute regarding inheritance of Gurdeep Singh son of Sunder Singh between the parties in respect of land measuring 15 acres situated in village Bhoipur. Gurdeep Singh executed a Will in favour of Amarjit Kaur, Baljinder Kaur and Karaj Singh son of Baljinder Kaur but prior to death he got the sale deed registered in favour of his wife and Karaj Singh. No land was given to Amarjit Kaur. Wheat crop was sown in the land and apprehending a dispute Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was presented by the police. After notice, the Divisional Magistrate, Moga dismissed the Calendra on the ground that there was no requirement to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it was a joint land and after the death of her father Amarjit Kaur was a co-sharer. Relies on Parkash Chand Sachdeva versus Criminal Misc. No. M-5806 of 2011 -2- State 1994(3) RCR 217 to contend that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and civil proceedings can continue simultaneously. In this case there was a dispute between the son, who had dispossessed his father. Father had initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also filed civil suit for injunction. It was held that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be dropped on the ground of pendency of civil suit where there is no dispute on the right of possession, the Magistrate is in power to take cognizance under Section 145 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file carefully. The ratio of Supreme Court judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case the revisional authority has observed that Amarjit Kaur was never in possession of the land in dispute. No explanation was given as to why she was claiming harvesting of the crop without being in possession. Amarjit Kaur was in the knowledge of the adoption deed, sale deed and gift deed executed by Gurdeep Singh in favour of Karaj Singh. There is no challenge to the adoption deed, sale deed and gift deed by Amarjit Kaur. In view of the above factual position, the ration of Supreme Court judgment is not applicable to the present case. This criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. February 23, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE