8.2012 Sarvpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.LM Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Luvinder Sofat, AAG, Punjab Mr.Ashish Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of order dated 21.4.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Fast Track Court, Amritsar, and the order dated 20.11.2007, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar as well as the Calendra dated

4.5.2007 . In the present case, the dispute is interse the family members i.e. mother, brothers and sister with regard to the partition of the property inherited by the father of petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. SHO, PS Majitha Road, Amritsar presented a Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after investigating the matter. Due to apprehension of breach of peace with regard to the question of possession of property measuring 233.33 Sq. yards CRM No.M-12285 of 2012 2 bearing plot No.107, Krishna Square, Amritsar, between both the parties, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-II, vide order dated 20.11.2007, appointed the SHO, Police Station Majitha Road, Amritsar as Receiver of the aforesaid land and directed to attach it until a competent Court of law determine the rights of parties thereto with regard to the party entitled to the possession thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has filed a civil suit with regard to the property in dispute.

The petitioner alongwith his father HS Arora was residing in the said property. However, the learned SDM has wrongly appointed the receiver on Calendera filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The dispute is with regard to the possession of property measuring 233.33 Sq. yards bearing plot No.107, Krishna Square, Amritsar, between both the parties. The dispute is interse the sister and brothers. Vide order dated 20.11.2007, the SDM appointed receiver of the property and the Criminal Revision filed by Gagan Bhatia and Sarvpreet Kaur was dismissed on 21.4.2012. Both the impugned orders/ judgment are being challenged in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is settled law that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not a substitute for second revision. This court will not examine the whole documentary and oral evidence to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So this second revision under the guise of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does CRM No.M-12285 of 2012 3 not lie.

The next arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the civil court is seized of the matter, so the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are misuse of power by the police and both the orders of the Courts below are bad in law. To support this contention, the learned counsel cites Zoravar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 1029 and Karam Singh vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zira 2001 (2) RCR (Crl.) 617. The case law cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the case in hand. In both the cited cases, the civil Court was already seized of the matter and the proceedings under Sction 145 Cr.P.C. was started later on during the pendency of civil suit and injunction order, whereas in this case the position is different. In this case, dispute regarding possession of property started on 22.4.2007 belonging to deceased HS Arora. The deceased was in exclusive possession of the property during his life time.

The police while taking preventive measures submitted Calendra to the SDM, Amritsar II under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 4.5.2007. The SDM appointed receiver on 20.11.2007. Miss Sarvpreet Kaur (petitioner herein) filed Civil Suit No.292 of 2008-2009 on 9.1.2008 against other legal representative of deceased HS Arora for partition of property. The police in its wisdom initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as there was dispute regarding possession over property between the LRs of deceased HS Arora. The main object of these impugned orders and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to preserve the peace. The final rights and shares of the parties are to be determined by the Civil Court in a civil suit. The CRM No.M-12285 of 2012 4 impugned orders are legal and justified. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in well reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

7.8.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE