Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1268 (PNJ)

Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-09-19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2013
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of the Notice and order dated 28.8.2008, (Annexures P4 to P6), passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the inquiry report dated 25.6.2008, conducted by DSP, it is held that the matter is of civil nature and there is no apprehension of breach of peace. Without considering this fact, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate appointed Tehsildar Khamano as receiver of the land in dispute. In the proceedings, Gurdeep Singh, attorney of the brother of the petitioner, admitted that the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the land for the last 25 years. He further submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the order under Section 146 of the Code. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the respondent is the attorney, of the brother of the petitioner. 4. The learned State counsel submits that after objective assessment of the circumstances and on reaching the satisfaction that there could be breach of peace at the time of harvesting of paddy and sugarcane crop. The rifle recovered from Jaspal Singh is deposited in the Malkhana at Police Station Khamano. 5. Heard and perused. 6. The relevant extract of the order dated 28.8.2008, passed by learned SDM reads as under: “From the perusal of police report and the statement of Ajaib Singh, ASI, I have got satisfied that in fact there can be breach of peace at any time regarding the cutting of Jiri and Sugarcane crop from the land in dispute. From these situation, it has been found that this is a case of emergent nature. Hence, it is necessary to take a quick decision in this regard. From these situation, it has been found that this is a case of emergent nature. Hence, it is necessary to take a quick decision in this regard. This case being of emergent nature and at this stage due to non-satisfaction of this fact as to which party is in actual possession of the same, I hereby order the attachment of the land in dispute under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and hereby appointed Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal, Tehsildar, Khamano as Receiver and it is directed that the abovesaid land in dispute be taken into possession as per rules and the crops on being ripened, after selling the same he may deposit the 10% commission amount in the Government Treasury till any decree or order is not received from any competent authority.” 7. As is evident from the record, the complainant Gurdeep Singh is claiming himself to be the attorney of Kuldeep Singh, brother of the petitioner and the petitioner has no concern with the land in dispute. On the contrary, he claimed his possession over the entire property. The land is still joint. One cosharer cannot oust the other cosharer, claiming himself to be in possession of the entire joint holding. Both the parties are claiming possession over the disputed land. In that eventuality, the SDM has rightly reached to a conclusion that an emergent situation has emerged, there is apprehension of breach of peace, which may culminate into some serious offence, therefore, correctly attached the land and appointed the Tehsildar, Khamano as its Receiver, through order (Annexure P6) impugned in the present petition. 8. Thus, the SDM has recorded the cogent and relevant circumstances for invoking the provisions under Section 145 of Cr.P.C to deal with the emergent situation in order to avoid any untoward situation. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P6) deserves to be maintained in the given circumstances of the case. 9. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also not maintainable as it amounts to second revision. In Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P6) deserves to be maintained in the given circumstances of the case. 9. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also not maintainable as it amounts to second revision. In Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa and others 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 373, it has been held that the High Court cannot act as Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court may interfere only where it is satisfied that the initiation of proceedings are abuse of process of Court. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is hereby dismissed as such. 11. However, in case, the either of the parties approaches the revenue authorities for partition of the land in question, the revenue authority shall decide the same within six months from the date of receipt of such an application. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed, hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main petition u/s 145 Cr.PC, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.