' Proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. In relation to possession with regard to Survey Nos.157 and 158 alongwith other survey numbers situated in Deh Sultanpur Taluka Matiari were initiated by S.D.M., Matiari on the report submitted by S.H.O. Police Station Odero Lal to the effect that despite civil suits filed by Muhammad Ramzan son of Umaruddin Arain as well as Mst. Ishrat Bibi and Muhammad Iqbal and maintenance of status quo orders passed by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, applicant and respondent No,4 were quarrelling over the possession and ownership of lands. The S.H.O. In his report submitted that there was apprehension of the breach of peace between the parties; therefore, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were warranted in the circumstances.
2. On receipt of such report, S.D.M. Issued show-cause notices to the parties and both the parties submitted their respective written statements before him. He also recorded the statements of certain witnesses and considered the report submitted by Tapedar Tapa Sultanpur indicating that there were entries in the Revenue Record in the names of Muhammad Ramzan son of Umeruddin Arain and Iqbal son of Siddique whereas Mst. Ishrat Bibi and Suleman Arain had no concern with the disputed lands. Learned S.D.M. In his order, dated 28-3-1996 made an observation that respondent Muhammad Ramzan is in possession of the lands and in the suit filed by him learned Senior Civil Judge had passed an order for maintenance of status quo between the parties to the suit. Noticing that the produce of the lands in dispute was subject to speedy and natural decay and tenants were deprived of their due share. Learned S.D.M. Directed the Tapedar concerned to harvest the standing crop and after deduction of his expenses incurred over the cultivation deliver half of the proceeds to tenants and 1/4th share in the proceeds to respondent Muhammad Ramzan for supply of tube-well water while the remaining 1/4th share be kept in trust under the supervision of S.H.O. Odero Lal. In the subsequent order, dated 21-4-1996 learned S.D.M. Observed that civil litigation was pending but the S.H.O. Had reported that there was no objection if Police force was withdrawn from the disputed lands and a Receiver appointed. Accordingly learned S.D.M.
Appointed Tapedar of the beat as Receiver for Kharif. 1996-97. Both the orders have been impugned before this Court by Muhammad Suleman with a prayer for quashment on a number of grounds.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the State. While the grievance of Mr. Qureshi is that the entries in the Record of Rights were neither correct nor sacrosanct, the second contention advanced by him is that in the face of civil litigation between the parties S.D.M. Should not have exercised his jurisdiction under the provisions of section 145, Cr.P.C. On the other hand Mr. Hakro is of the view that these preventive proceedings were initiated by S.H.O. Odero Lal in connivance with applicant Muhammad Suleman who has absolutely no concern with the disputed lands but he with a view to grab the proceeds managed the filing of the report by S.H.O. And finding that the order passed by S.D.M. Did not suit his desires he has approached this Court for quashment of such proceedings which at his instance could not be maintained.
4. Mr. Agha Khuda Bux, learned State Counsel does not support the impugned orders and is of the view that these proceedings be dropped as criminal proceedings are always subordinate to the findings of a civil Court which is a proper forum for determination of respective rights and obligations of the parties.
5. Upon a careful consideration of the points raised and without going deeper into the controversies, I may observe that the criminal proceedings are always subordinate and subservient to the findings by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Legal requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction under sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C. Are (i) the existence of a dispute; (ii) likely to cause breach of peace; (iii) concerning land or water or the boundaries thereof; (iv) within the territorial limits of a Magistrate. Sole object of exercising jurisdiction under this provision is to prevent parties to fight over possession of immovable property and to shed blood and disturb peace. Decision of title of parties over disputed lands was never intended in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. The purpose behind such proceedings is to have the question of possession of immovable property determined until any such order is passed by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The inquiry is limited to the question as to who was in possession in fact on the date of the order, irrespective of the question as to the rights of the parties and the title to the property. The result of the proceedings may be to deprive the rightful owner of possession of his property temporarily and to subject him to other inconveniences, but this and other considerations are necessarily subordinate to the imperative necessity of preserving the peace. The object of such proceedings is to prevent disturbance to public tranquillity and to protect the realm from riots and civil commotions in cases where disputes over property are likely to cause breach of the peace. In order to sustain proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C., it is necessary that there should be a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. In case a Magistrate finds in the inquiry that there is no dispute at all or the dispute is not such as to be likely to cause a breach of the peace, he should cancel his preliminary order. In case of bona fide dispute over the property, parties should not be encouraged to have recourse to Criminal Courts when the point at issue can more appropriately be decided in Civil Court. The practice of using the Criminal Courts for setting civil disputes must be deprecated.
6. In the present case, parties are already agitating their rights and obligations in relation to the disputed lands before the competent Court of civil! Jurisdiction in which an order for maintenance of status quo has already been passed. Even the learned S.D.M. Was conscious of this situation while passing the impugned order appointing Tapedar Sultanpur as Receiver to take over the possession of proceeds of the lands for the year 1996-97 which period has since expired. In fact the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate have served their purpose and the parties to the petition are not likely to benefit from the continuance of such proceedings. I am, therefore, of the considered view that without commenting upon the rights and title of the parties to the disputed lands it would only be just, fair and appropriate to quash the proceedings in the larger interest of the parties leaving the issues to be finally determined by the Civil Court.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, proceedings pending before the S.D.M. And presently stayed by the Court stand quashed. The parties are always at liberty to seek the redress of their grievances from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Subject to aforesaid observations, criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. .