JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Criminal Misc. No. 42773 of 2009 The application is allowed and the written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Misc. No. M-31334 of 2008 2. Ram Chander and three others have filed the instant petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing order dated 3.11.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Fatehabad (Annexure P/6) whereby land has been attached under section 146(1) of Cr.P.C. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 3 are brothers. Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are sons of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively whereas respondent nos. 4 and 5 are both sons of respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 moved application Annexure P/1 to Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad alleging that he has 1/3rd share in 62 kanals 8 marlas land. He is in possession of Killa Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of rectangle no. 151 which is surrounded by land in possession of the petitioners and therefore, respondent no. 3 cannot enter his field. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also have 1/3rd share each in aforesaid 62 kanals 8 marlas of land. Respondent no. 3 also alleged that petitioner no. 1 threatened respondent nos. 4 and 5. It was also alleged that water course for irrigation of land of respondent no. 3 has also been dismantled by the petitioners about one year ago. On the basis of the aforesaid application, police presented calendra Annexure P/4 for initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. and thereupon, learned SDM after issuing show cause notice to both the parties passed impugned order attaching the aforesaid land and appointed Naib Tehsildar, Fatehabad as Receiver of the disputed land. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that although the land is joint, yet by mutual arrangement, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 jointly are in possession of specific portion of the joint land and similarly respondent no. 3 is in possession of specific portion of the joint land. It was also contended that respondent no. 3 has claimed his possession over Killa Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of rectangle no. 151 and the petitioners are ready to give undertaking that they would not interfere in possession of respondent no. 3 is in possession of specific portion of the joint land. It was also contended that respondent no. 3 has claimed his possession over Killa Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of rectangle no. 151 and the petitioners are ready to give undertaking that they would not interfere in possession of respondent no. 3 over the said land nor they ever did so and therefore, there was no apprehension of breach of peace. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent nos. 3 to 5 contended that there is no passage and water course for the land which is in possession of respondent no. 3 and there was real apprehension of breach of peace in relation to the disputed land and therefore, proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. have been rightly initiated. It was also contended that, in fact, section 145 Cr.P.C. is meant for such situation. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute that respondent no. 3 is in possession of killa nos. 21, 22 and 23 of rectangle no. 151 out of the joint land and on the other hand, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the remaining joint land. Consequently, the question of breach of peace in relation to the possession over the said land does not arise. On the other hand, the grievance of respondent no. 3 appears to be that he has no passage for the land which is in possession of respondent no. 3. Water course for his land was also allegedly dismantled by petitioners about a year prior to the application Annexure P/1 moved by respondent no. 3. However, no breach of peace took place during the period of one year. Moreover, respondent no. 3 has appropriate remedy for restoration of the alleged dismantled water course, if any, under the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1973 and respondent no. 3 can have his remedy for passage for the land in his possession either through civil court or by way of partition of the joint land through revenue court. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 to 5, in fact, stated that partition proceedings are already pending. In these circumstances, there was no justification for attachment of the land and appointment of Receiver to take possession of the land. Respondent no. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 to 5, in fact, stated that partition proceedings are already pending. In these circumstances, there was no justification for attachment of the land and appointment of Receiver to take possession of the land. Respondent no. 3 has civil remedy for his grievance, but has resorted to criminal proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. as a short-cut which is apparently abuse of process of law. 8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5 also contended that even after appointment of Receiver, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have forcibly cut the fodder crop of Jabi (wild oat) and also grazed the cattle and thereby violated section 145(1) Cr.P.C. for which the Receiver has lodged FIR Annexure R/3/1. However, nothing in this order shall have any bearing relating to the alleged occurrence. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and impugned attachment order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure P/6, passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehabad is quashed. Consequently, proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. are also quashed. --------------