Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.3.2009 Satnam Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 15411 of 2009 Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. Filing of certified copies of Annexures P5 and P6 is exempted. Criminal Misc. No. 15410 of 2009 Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. Documents (Annexures P5 and P6) are taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 A discussion of two Courts below very specifically bring out a fact that there are three distinct portions of the property bearing No. 159, 159-A and 159-B-1(P). The Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad, vide Annexure P3 had ordered that possession of the property which was Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 (O&M) 2 attached by the Receiver be returned to the respondent. The Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalalabad, had held as under:- “...Thus, it is held that there is possession of Harinder Singh son of Shamsher Singh on Kothi No. 159, Court Road, Ferozepur. The receiver and the police are directed to hand over possession of this property to party No.1 and a report be sent to this Court. A copy of this order is sent for compliance. File be consigned to the record room”. This controversy was again raised before the revisional Court who noticed the contention that:- “...It is further argued that so far as the dispute resulting into order dated 9.8.2000, 19.7.2001 and 10.2.2004 are concerned the same pertains to the property no. 159-B whereas the present property is bearing No. 159”. The revisional Court again noticed the argument that:- “...It is further argued that pertaining to the property in dispute which is bearing no. 159, the present petitioner failed to prove if which of the civil proceedings is pending before the Court and once the petitioner failed to prove pendency of any civil proceedings before the Court regarding declaration of title or possession of the property in dispute, the jurisdiction of criminal court in initiation of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. is not Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 (O&M) 3 barred”. After noticing the contention, the revisional Court held as under:- “...Again at the cost of repetition it can be said that the order dated 9.8.2000, 19.7.2001 and 10.2.2004 are pertaining to the property bearing no. 159-A and not pertaining to property no. 159 which was the subject matter of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C.” XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “...So far as the averments of the petitioner are concerned that the civil suit is pending before the learned lower Court, he has not placed on record any document to show if any civil suit is pending but if we go through Ex.A3 the order dated 28.4.2004 passed in civil suit no. 476-1/17/12/2002 it shows that it was pertaining to civil suit for a decree of declaration pertaining to portion No. 159-B/1(P) in which Harinder Singh, the present respondent was impleaded as a party vide order dated 28.4.2004”. To resolve this controversy, the matter was adjourned on 16.3.2009 permitting counsel for the petitioner to place necessary documents on record. Vide Criminal Misc. No. 15410 of 2009, documents were taken on record as Annexures P5 and P6. A perusal of document (Annexure P5) in the head note shows that it pertains to portion No. 159-B-1(P). Criminal Misc. No. M-7048 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Similarly, document (Annexure P6) also pertains to portion No. 159-B-1 (P). Two Courts have gone against the petitioner. Petitioner had lost in the revision. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not a Court of fact. From no document, petitioner has been able to show his possession over the portion possession of which is being returned to the respondent Harinder Singh. No legal issue has been raised. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the present petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 25, 2009 “DK”