Crl.Misc. M No.3853 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M No. 3853 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 09, 2010 Malkeet Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.B.S.Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) seeking quashing of order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar (Annexure P1) whereby property of the petitioner has been wrongly attached under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the Calandera (Annexure P2) reads as under:- “Brief facts of Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are as that in the village Majhwind, late Bishan Singh has two daughters Balbir Kaur and Balwinder Kaur and a son Surjit Singh. Balbir Kaur wife of Amar Singh is married and residing at House No.77, Gali no.20, Ananad Parbat, New Delhi. Balwinder Kaur wife of Shamsher Singh resident of Dhand Kasel is married and presently Crl.Misc. M No.3853 of 2010 (O&M) 2 residing at Samrat Colony, Ahmedabad, Gujrat and their brother Surjit Singh son of Bishan Singh is unmarried and is residing with his sister Balwinder Kaur. These 3 brother and sisters have got ancestral plot 18 marlas in the village. That they all have left village 30/35 years ago and come to village off and on. Above named Balbir Kaur has got electricity meter installed in her name and she has also installed floor mill on the plot. Balbir Kaur sold this 18 marla plot including house to Malkeet Singh son of Lakhbir Singh resident of Majhwind for Rs.6,90,000/- (Rs.35000/- per sq yd.) on stamp papers. Malkeet Singh want to take possession on the purchased plot as per the agreement. And Balbir Kaur's other sister Balwinder Kaur and brother Surjit Singh are also claiming right over this property and also wants to take possession. For this reason, there is tension between both the parties. Malkeet Singh is trying to take possession on purchased plot. Whereas, Balwinder Kaur and Surjit Singh are claiming their possession. Both the parties have been advised number of times but are adamant on their stand. Fight can broke out any time and damaged could be caused to life and property. As the land is within the limits of Lal Lakir, so, no party could produce any evidence of their ownership and Malkeet Singh has only produced stamp paper at agreement to sell regarding purchased land. Hence, no body could be established owner of this land. That both parties want to take possession of this land. So, there is possibility of breach of law and order, altercation can Crl.Misc. M No.3853 of 2010 (O&M) 3 take place anytime and damage could be caused to life also. So it is requested through this Calendra that Section 145 Cr.P.C. be imposed on this 18 marla land situated in village Majhwind and some civil officer be appointed to implement this. Separate proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. are being initiated against them.” A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P1) reveals that after the presentation of the calandera, notice was issued to the parties to appear on 19.1.2010 and submit their written statement in respect of their claims. Both the parties appeared in person and submitted their oral claims. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, after hearing the parties in order to maintain law and order situation, appointed Station House Officer, Police Station Kathunangal as a Receiver over the property. Both the sides claimed possession over the property in dispute. Hence, the present petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit. Although petitioner-Malkeet Singh has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 28.12.2009 yet an agreement to sell is not a document of title. The Civil Court has not passed any interim order which would prima facie establish the possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute. The case of respondents No. 3 and 4 is that they are in possession of the land in dispute, whereas, Malkeet Singh has alleged in the civil suit that he was in possession of the suit land Crl.Misc. M No.3853 of 2010 (O&M) 4 on the basis of agreement to sell. In the absence of any interim order passed by the Civil Court, the impugned order calls for no interference. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 09, 2010 arya