ORDER R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.1.1995 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, after due consideration, upheld the proceedings of the S.D.M. dated 27.7.1989 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') initiated at the behest of Amir Chand.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Amir Chand had purchased property Plot No. 27/34, Gali No. 9, Biswas Nagar on 10.12.1959 from the Managing Officer of Acquired Evacuee Property in an auction. This plot was tress passed upon by Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand. Amir Chand filed a suit for possession against Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand in the year 1971 which was contested by both the persons. The suit was decreed in favour of Amir Chand on 27.11.1975. Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand filed an appeal before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, which was dismissed.
3. On 16.2.1976 proceedings for Execution of the decree were initiated by the decreeholder against Prakash Chand, Suraj and Sohan Lal upon which possession of the Plot No. 27/34, Gali No. 9, Biswas Nagar was handed over to the decree holder. Amir Chand, on 27.5.1991 by the Bail if with the aid of police. After two days of handing over of the possession, locks were broken open and the property was again tress passed by Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand. It then gave rise to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code in which the SDM upheld the ownership/possession of Amir Chand over plot No. 27/34, Gali No.9, Biswas Nagar and possession handed over. Bhagwan Devi made an application for being imp leaded as party during the pendency of the proceedings. She stated that she was the actual owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession and her title had become absolute by lapse of time and the respondents, Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand, were, in fact, her tenants. She pleaded that in a rent suit she had got possession of the premises from Hazari Lal and Prakash Chand and, therefore, further pleaded that the order passed by the SDM based on the judgment obtained by Amir Chand from the Civil Court was bad. The learned Magistrate, upon a Kalandra being filed, proceeded under Section 145(1) of the Code and passed an order dated 18.8.1981 and attached the premises by an order dated 26.8.1981 and directed possession to be handed over to Amir Chand. This order was challenged in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, by way of Criminal Revision No. 35 of 1981. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon careful study of the material available on record returned finding which reads as follows:
"This case is an example as to how a lawful owner of the property can be deprived of the fruits of his hard earned money at the hands of property grabbers. The property was purchased by Amir Chand in Government Auction. First it was tresspassed by Prakash Chand & Others. It took 10 years to Amir Chand to get the possession of the property from the tresspassers. After he got the possession of the property through a lawful decree under the orders of the Court, he was against dispossessed by some persons and again proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. Started. Proceedings u/S 145 Cr.P.C. should have been outrightly thrown away by SDM and the police should have been given directions to restore the possession as per the orders of Civil Court. The report of the SHO in this case, is an eye opener. SHO, in his statement has stated that possession of property was handed over to Amir Chand under the orders of Civil Court with the help of police in execution of a decree and just after two days, it was again tress passed by same persons. The Duty of the SHO was to throw out the tress passers when there was a clear cut decree of the Civil Court, but in stead of throwing out the tress passers, who were bent upon committing gal act and crime, the SHO conveniently forwarded a Calendar u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. SDM who was appraised of the decree of the Civil Court, should not have attached the property, but should have immediately ordered for handing over of the property to the lawful owner. Police and state machinery are there to see that the legal rights of the people are up held. They cannot become instruments to perpetuate illegality. Proceedings u/s. 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be a tool for perpetuating injustice. Where the civil court has decided the rights and passed a decree for possession, the SDM cannot order to seal the premises. The only order, that SDM can pass in such cases, is to restore the possession immediately with the help of police to the lawful owner in whose favour the civil court has a passed a decree. If tresspassers can harvest the fruits of their criminal acts for years together and are successful in keeping the possession of the premises with them by their acts of tress passing for so long, it puts premium upon criminal acts, encouraging criminality in the society. I, therefore, consider that proceedings in this case have unnecessary dragged for about 15 years, after the initiation of proceedings u/S 145 Cr.P.C. Had the SDM taken steps in the right direction, and ordered the SHO to restore the possession immediately to the lawful owner and not to forward the Kalandera u/S 145 Cr.P.C. when the dispute of ownership had been decided by the Civil Court, the lawful owner would not have got harassed in the courts for so long.
I consider that the order of SDM Ansu Prakash, dated 29.9.89, is just an illegal order. There is no infirmity in the order. All the documents filed by Bhagwan Devi show that she wanted to grab the property buy manicuring and by restoring, to procuring exparte orders and by collusive suits, filed by her. I therefore, hereby dismiss this revision. I consider that revision petitioner should pay the cost of these proceedings. The cost is fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. She is directed to deposit the cost within one week, otherwise the same shall be recovered as penalty. The SHO, P.S. Vivek Vihar, is directed to deposit the cost within one week, otherwise the same shall be recovered as penalty. The SHO, P.S. Vivek Vihar is directed to handover the possession of property No. 27/34, Gali No. 9 Viswas Nagar, to Amir Chand immediately forthwith by unsealing the premises (if it is sealed) and (if there is lock of any one), by breaking upon the lock. The report of the SHO of compliance of this order be sent to this court by the SHO, by 18th January, 1995."
It is this order dated 1.6.1995 which is sought to be challenged before me on the ground that the SDM has not completed the proceedings under Section 145(4) before passing an order under Section 146. Except for a bald challenge before me, the learned counsel has not been able to show any perversity in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 1.6.1995.
4. I have carefully gone through the material on record and I find no ground on which the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 1.6.1995 can be faulted with. In this view of the matter, I uphold the judgment and order dated 1.6.1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and dismiss Criminal Misc. (Main) 1586 of 1995. The lower court record be sent back forthwith.