Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1376 (RAJ)

Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Sub-District Magistrate, Rajgarh (hereinafter referred to as the SDM for short) wherein the learned SDM had appointed a receiver over a disputed property between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted a complaint at Police Station, Rajgarh and also submitted a complaint before the learned SDM, Rajgarh wherein he claimed that there was a dispute between him and Hari Ram Respondent No. 2, about a plot situated in Mohalla Khadolian about which a civil suit is pending between the parties before the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, the parties have clashed over the plot. In fact, because of the animosity between the families, the petitioners son was killed by those who are family members of the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the illegal occupation of the said plot by the Respondent No. 2 and his family members was allegedly made. Therefore, he prayed that action should be taken under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as the Code for short). Upon the receipt of this complaint, the matter was referred to the SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh, who was directed to investigate into the case. The SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh conducted the preliminary inquiry under Section 145 of the code and submitted his report to the SDM The learned SDM vide order 20.08.2004 was pleased to issue notice to the Respondent No. 2 as well as to appoint the SHO, Police Station, Rajgarh as a receiver over the disputed property. Since the Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2004, he filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh. Vide order dated 24.03.2005 the learned Judge was pleased to quash the order dated 20.08.2004 whereby canceling the appointment of the receiver. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that because of the dispute between two families, the petitioner has already lost his son. The bad blood continues between the two families. The Respondent No. 2 is still trying to illegally occupy the plot. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that because of the dispute between two families, the petitioner has already lost his son. The bad blood continues between the two families. The Respondent No. 2 is still trying to illegally occupy the plot. Thus, the apprehension of breach of peace is a bona fide-one. He has further argued that the SDM was pleased to pass an order appointing the SHO only after being satisfied about the possibility of the breach of peace. Lastly, he has contended that mere pendency of a civil suit with regard to the same property in question does not oust of the jurisdiction of the SDM under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, has argued that once the title is disputed before the civil Court and the civil proceedings are pending, there is no reason for appointing a receiver over the property in dispute. According to the police report, it is the Respondent No. 2, who has the possession over the property in dispute. Thus, there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Similarly, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has supported the impugned order. 5. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that mere pendency of the civil suit with regard to the disputed property would not oust the jurisdiction of the SDM to pass an order under Section 145 of the Code. In the case of Ram Pal vs. State of Raj. & Anr., 1989 (1) RLR 954, this Court held, as under:- The main purpose of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, is to prevent breach of peace concerning any land etc. and the position ought to be examined by him in order to find out whether there is a dispute concerning the property, which is likely to cause breach of peace. If so, the Magistrate has to act under Section 145(1) CrPC and the question whether the pendency of civil suit should put a stop to the criminal proceedings would arise only when complete circumstances are placed before the Magistrate. Here the parties did not submit their claims before the SDM, but the matter was taken up in revision before the Sessions Judge. Here the parties did not submit their claims before the SDM, but the matter was taken up in revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has examined the question of pendency of civil suit but has not looked into the question about existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. These two matters are to be considered together while deciding whether proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are to be continued or dropped. If the civil Court has already given a decision, which may be final or has made some interim arrangement, then it may be possible that such order would look after the aspect of likelihood of breach of peace. But there may be a situation when there may be no order of the Civil Court or the order of the Civil Court may not be dealing with the situation which is likely to cause a breach of the peace, in such circumstances, the Magistrate has to take some action. It is quite another matter that the parties may be directed to approach the civil Courts to obtain a suitable order within a particular period and after that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may be dropped. 6. Similarly, in case of Sushil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 CrLR (Raj.) 94, it was clearly held that the pendency of the civil suit is no bar against initiating the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that peace is maintained in the society at large. In case, there is a possibility of a breach of peace or of a law and order situation being disturbed, it is primary duty of the SDM, under Section 145 of the Code, to put an end to such a situation by appointing a receiver over the disputed property. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has already lost his son over a fight with regard to the disputed plot. The fact that a person has been killed over a land dispute clearly proves two factors; firstly that the family of the Respondent No. 2 is powerful to take the law in their own hands and to allegedly commit the murder of a young boy. Secondly, it also shows the vengeance with which they would like to grab the plot. The fact that a person has been killed over a land dispute clearly proves two factors; firstly that the family of the Respondent No. 2 is powerful to take the law in their own hands and to allegedly commit the murder of a young boy. Secondly, it also shows the vengeance with which they would like to grab the plot. Merely because a civil suit is pending would not prevent such a person from violating the law in the future as well. Therefore, the possibility that a breach of peace would be committed by the Respondent No. 2 is a strong possibility. Hence, the SDM was certainly justified in appointing a receiver over the disputed property. The learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence of the case and the scope of the admit of Sections 145 and 146 of the Code in a proper prospective. Therefore, the impugned order is untenable. 7. In the result, we quash and set aside the order dated 24.03.2005 and restore the order dated 20.08.2004. We also direct the SDM to conclude the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code as soon as possible. 8. With these observations, this petition is hereby allowed