Ravi Dutt Poonia vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order dated 09.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision Petition No.7/2024, whereby the revision petition was allowed, setting aside an order dated 05.01.2024, passed under section 146 of Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh appointing the Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh as receiver of disputed property.

Heard.

The petitioner asserts that he purchased the disputed property from the Village Upliftment Authority, Vidhyapeeth Sangaria, for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- through an auction conducted on 30.07.1994. Possession was taken over by the petitioner following the auction. Shri Krishna Chandra Karwasara was appointed to execute the agreement. However, when no further action was taken, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, seeking specific performance of the contract, which is currently pending. The land in question was subsequently sold to Respondent No. 2 in 2023 via another sale deed.

Both the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 lodged complaints regarding this matter, which were investigated by the SHO, PS Hanumangarh. Following the investigation, the SHO filed a complaint under Sections 145/146 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned SDM. The learned SDM, through an order dated 05.01.2024, appointed a Receiver for the property. Respondent No. 2 challenged this decision by filing a revision petition before the learned Sessions Court, which was allowed, thereby setting aside the learned SDM's order appointing a Receiver. Hence, this petition.

The core issue raised herein is whether the learned Revisional Court exceeded jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition against an interim order dated 05.01.2024, vide which a receiver was appointed for the land subject to finality of the rival claims of both possession and title.

The answer to the question aforesaid, both on maintainability and merits, is in the affirmative. Let's examine why.

To determine whether the order passed by the learned SDM is interlocutory or final, it is has to be first seen if appointment of the receiver is co-terminus with the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Notably, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were ongoing when an application for the appointment of a receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. was entertained, and appropriate orders were passed. Given that this is thus an interlocutory order, the learned Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition. On this basis alone, the impugned order is unsustainable.

Furthermore, arguments on merits reveal that the petitioner purchased the land in question through a public auction on 30.07.1994, having paid the full consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- to Gram Vidhyapeeth, Sangariya, who thus claims the title being a vendee. It is though perplexing as to how the respondent no.2, despite the petitioner having paid the entire consideration way back in 1994, stakes a claim on the same property as a subsequent purchaser in 2023, claiming possession through a purchase agreement. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner's claim as a purchaser in a public auction is on firmer footing than that of Respondent No. 2, who bought the same land in 2023 through another sale deed.

Be that as it may, the question of which of the rival titles is valid is not for this Court to determine, as a civil suit regarding the sale is already pending, filed by the petitioner, and the trial is still ongoing.

Suffice to say that the order passed by the learned SDM appointing a receiver was appropriate within the entire scheme. The appointment of the receiver is co-terminus with the conclusion of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or the conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier. The law envisages that findings of the civil court will necessarily prevail over those of the learned SDM in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Revisional court order is thus set aside and the one passed by the SDM is restored.

Petition is allowed accordingly. All pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.