IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13688 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 1.8.2011. Chandagi & another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the respondents No.2 to 13. NAWAB SINGH J. Challenge is to the order dated April 26th, 2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar whereby he set-aside the order dated March 26th, 2010 of Executive Magistrate, Jhajjar vide which land in question was attached and Tehsildar, Jhajjar was appointed as Receiver under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) on the report filed by the Police of Police Station Jhajjar under Section 145 of the Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the judgment of the Appellate Court on the ground that inspite of the fact that civil suits were pending between the parties and parties were directed to maintain status-quo, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code could be initiated. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on Mohinder Singh vs. Shri Dilbagh Rai PLR 1976 (803). 3. Indisputably, petitioners and respondents No.2 to 13 are co-sharers. Among them, civil suits are pending. In one of the suits, parties have been directed to maintain status-quo. Partition proceedings between the parties are also pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Criminal Misc. No. M-13688 of 2010 (2) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that petitioners are in possession over the property in dispute. If they are in possession then why they should support the appointment of the Receiver? No satisfactory answer could be given by the counsel for the petitioners. In normal course, if one is in possession of the property, he would never like that Receiver should be appointed to manage the affairs of his property. There is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate that a dispute was likely to cause breach of peace. The Executive Magistrate did not issue notice to the respondents herein. He only relied upon the report of the Police submitted under Section 145 of the Code and straightway accepted the same and appointed Tehsildar, Jhajjar as Receiver. 5. In Mohinder Singh's case (supra) , it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the Executive Magistrate has jurisdiction to continue proceedings under section 145 of the Code irrespective of the pendency of the case between the parties about the same subject matter and inspite of the interim orders passed by the Civil Courts. It has been also held in this authority that jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code should be exercised with extreme caution if a civil Court is properly seized of the case. 6. Ordinarily, when civil Court is seized of the matter in dispute, the Executive Magistrate should not step in under Section 145 of the Code. Appointment of Receiver is then an exceptional remedy which should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. To appoint a Receiver without objective satisfaction regarding danger of breach of peace regarding possession of immovable property, would be erroneous. More so, when the Executive Magistrate acts even without giving notice to the affected parties. 7. In the case in hand, it has been specifically stated by counsel for the petitioners that they are in possession of the property in dispute. If they are actually in possession of the property in dispute why the question of appointing Tehsildar as a Receiver by the Executive Magistrate should arise. As has been observed earlier, Criminal Misc. No. M-13688 of 2010 (3) there is no evidence on record that there was apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. 8. In view of above, there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. Hence, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 1.8.2011. SN