Lakhmi Ram vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tohana, Annexure P3, dated 20.6.1989, under Sections 145/146 of the Code.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took agricultural land measuring 8 kanals 16 marlas described in detail in the petition on 99 years lessee from Siri Chand, respondent No. 2, under a registered lease deed dated 3.4.1987. The possession of the land was delivered to him under the lease. The mutation was sanctioned on 9.11.1987 and khasra girdawari entry was made in his favour in the year 198788 and 198889. Respondent No. 2, however, wanted to forcibly evict the petition. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and injunction. On an application for temporary injunction, the learned Sub Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Respondent No. 2 got initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code through the police. The police made report on 16.6.1989 on which a composite order under Sections 145(1) and 146 of the Code was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on 20.6.1989. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and the proceedings based thereon on two grounds, namely, that the order in question was passed in a mechanical fashion without application of mind and that it was an abuse of the process of the Court.

Respondent No. 2 did not file any reply to the petition but has otherwise opposed the petition.

After going through the report of the police, Annexure P2, and the order Annexure P3, it cannot be said that there is lack of application of mind. The order Annexure P3 discloses the essential ingredients of Section 145(1) as well as Section 146 of the Code. It records the satisfaction of the Magistrate that there was imminent apprehension of breach of peace on account of dispute about possession of land and that it was a case of urgency and unless land was attached under Section 146 of the Code, it could lead to a law and order problem. In the police report, Annexure P2, it was stated that already proceedings under Section 107/151 of the Code had been going on against the parties but even then further proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code became necessary. The petitioner cannot, therefore, succeed on the first ground. With regard to the second ground, learned Counsel strongly relied on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1985 SC 472. His contention is that the Civil Court being seized of the matter, parallel proceedings by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, was an abuse of process of Court, and accordingly the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 of the Code should be quashed. Faced with this difficulty, counsel for respondent No. 2 referred to a number of authorities, in which proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. were not quashed. The authorities relied upon are : Jagdish alias Jagdish Kumar v. Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 1987(1) CLR 487; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1988(1) Recent C.R. 150 ; Kuldip Singh Sahni v. The State of Punjab and others, 1988(1) Recent C.R. 74 .

No proposition of law of general application is discernible in these decisions and these were rendered in their own facts and circumstances.

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court to permit parallel proceedings under Sections 145, 146 of the Code.

For the foregoing reasons, the order Annexure P3, dated 20.6.1989 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tohana, under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code is hereby quashed.