Advocates:
DALBIR BHANDARI, H.M.SINGH, LALITA KOHLI, MANOJ SVARUP, Mohan Pandey, R.D.UPADHYAY, Rachana Joshi Issar

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court granted Special Leave to Appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to interfere with the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the subsequent attachment of property. (!)
• A civil suit for possession and injunction (Title Suit No. 87/75) was already pending before the Civil Judge at Ballia regarding the same property, involving the parties' close relations. (!)
• The civil suit had been dismissed by a judgment dated February 28, 1981, with an appeal still pending disposal before the appellate court. (!)
• The Court held that there is hardly any justification for initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 when a civil litigation concerning possession is already pending and has been adjudicated. (!)
• The decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in matters of possession; therefore, the criminal court should not invoke its jurisdiction while the civil court is examining the issue and parties can seek interim orders (like injunctions) from the civil court. (!)
• The Court ruled that multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties and that public time should not be wasted over meaningless litigation caused by parallel proceedings. (!)
• Consequently, the Court was satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and quashed the order of the learned Magistrate initiating proceedings under Section 145 and attaching the property. (!)
• The appeal was allowed, and it was left open to either party to move the appellate judge in the civil litigation for appropriate interim orders if advised. (!)