Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 206 (HP)

BABU LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-07-29

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—In order to appreciate the controversy few facts may be noticed : 2. One Lachhmi Nand was the owner of the property, subject matter of dispute. According to the petitioner, Babu Lal, part of this property was gifted to his son in March, 2001 and the remaining part was bequeathed by Lachhmi Nand in his favour. Lachhmi Nand expired in July, 2001. The mutation of the property of Lachhmi Nand was attested in favour of the petitioner. On 16th of August, 2001, respondent No. 4 Piare Lal Laid a suit before the Sub Judge, Bilaspur for declaration that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute of Lachhmi Nand by adverse possession. Petitioner Babu Lal filed two complaints with the Police at Bilaspur, one dated 3rd September, 2001 and another dated 24th September, 2001 complaining that Piare Lal along with three other respondents No. 4 to 7 in the petition entered his courtyard, started abusing him and his family members, when the complainant protested, they started beating him. Respondent No. 4 was armed with knife and claimed that the land in question did not belong to the father of the petitioner. He also threatened the complainant to kill him. 3. Police, after inquiry, filed a complaint under Sections 107, 150 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur against respondents No. 4 to 7. This complaint was filed on 30th of September, 2001. The police on enquiry found that the respondents had no proof of their possession of the suit property and they wanted to grab the property, in question, which is in possession of the petitioner. On 6th of November of 2001, the notices were directed to be issued to respondents No. 4 to 7. 4. In August 2001, it appears, respondent No. 4 filed a suit claiming title over the property in question. These respondents took a plea that the matter is pending before the Civil Court in respect of the suit property and proceedings before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate were thus stayed. 4. In August 2001, it appears, respondent No. 4 filed a suit claiming title over the property in question. These respondents took a plea that the matter is pending before the Civil Court in respect of the suit property and proceedings before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate were thus stayed. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate took a view that though the question of title is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court yet Babu Lal could not be dispossessed from the property by police on apprehension of the breach of peace and Sub Divisional Magistrate accordingly directed that till the question of title is decided by the Civil Court, the keys of the property shall be handed over to Babu Lal or until evicted from the disputed property in due course of law. 5. Thus, the petitioner, prima facie was found to be in possession of the disputed property. The matter was thereafter carried to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge remanded the case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Saying that the procedure under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. Taking this as an order of reversal, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide orders dated 17th of June, 2003 and 24th of June, 2003 directed the S.H.O. Sadar to put his own lock on the disputed premises in the presence of the Tehsildar, Bilaspur and take keys in his possession. 6. Aggrieved petitioner, Babu Lal Laid a petition before the learned Sessions Judge. On this petition, learned Sessions Judge passed an order on 19th of June, 2003 saying that as the keys were handed over to the petitioner in view of the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of 6th of November, 2001, therefore, the order of 17th of June, 2003 has rightly been passed by locking the premises in dispute. In that case, a plea was taken by the petitioner that civil litigation, in respect of the property, is pending before the Civil Court, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner is in this revision petition. 7. In that case, a plea was taken by the petitioner that civil litigation, in respect of the property, is pending before the Civil Court, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioner is in this revision petition. 7. It is now well settled that if the civil litigation is pending in respect of a property, in which question of possession is raised, then parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not justified, particularly when possession is in dispute before the Civil Court. The parties, if they have any grievance can approach the Civil Court for the redressal of the grievance by interim orders such as grant of injunction or appointment of receiver for protection of the property. I draw support for this view I have taken from Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P., 1985 SCC 472. 8. Based on aforesaid facts, order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate directing the locking of premises is unsustainable. Aggrieved party can always approach the Civil Court which is seized of the dispute for an appropriate relief. 9. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 17th of June, 2003 as affirmed by learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 19th of June, 2003 and further order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 24th of June, 2003 are set aside. 10. It is directed that parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be discontinued forthwith before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. So far as proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, they may continue in accordance with law. 11. The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. 12. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. The records of the Court of Sessions Judge and Sub Divisional Magistrate be returned immediately. Cr.M.P. 316 of 2003 In view of the disposal of the petition, this application has become infructuous.