IMPORTANT POINT
When a civil litigation is pending for the property where in the question of possession is involved, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Proceeds Code, would not be Justified.

JUDEMENT

M.K. Chawla, J. - In order to dispose of the present revision petition, this court is not required to go into the disputed questions of fact, The bone of contention between the parties is the tenancy rights of shop no. 51 AF, Kolhapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Suresh Kumar Kohli claims himself to be the tenant of the disputed premises since 8.12.78. Inder Sain Kohli, the father of the petitioner asserts his rights of tenancy in the said shop. He is supported by his sons Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar.

2. As the dispute could not be resolved amicably, Inder Sain Kohli filed a Suit in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge for permanent injunction against the petitioner and another on or about 30.4.83. Along with the said Suit, the plaintiff also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying for the grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner and another from interfering in the peaceful possession of the shop. The ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the lower court. It was, however, later on vacated by Smt, Kamlesh Sabharwal, S.U.C. Delhi, on 14th May, 1986 Shri Inder Sain, however, immediately moved the Sr. Sub-Judge and was able to secure the order of maintaining status quo qua the shop in dispute till the disposal of the appeal. This appeal is still pending and is being hotly contested by the petitioner.

3 Feeling helpless, Shri Suresh Kumar thought of and devised another method to take possession of the shop or in the alternative to deprive his father of his right to use the same. On 19.6.86, be moved an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned S.D.M. Shri Vijay Kumar and Shri Ashok Kumar were arrayed as the respondents. He did not include his father Inder Sain as a party presumably because of the pendency of civil litigation between the two. The learned S.D.M. called for the report from the S.H.O., Police Station Roshanara Road, and without affording the respondents an opportunity of being heard, directed the S.H.O. to seal the premises under Section 146 Cr. P.C. This order was challenged and Shri S.N. Kapoor, Addl. Sessions Judge Delhi, quashed the proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr. P.C. The S.H.O. concerned was directed to deliver the keys of the shop to the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The parties were directed to abide by the judgment of the Civil Court. It is against this order Shri Suresh Kumar has come up in revision challenging the correctness of the impugned order of Shri S. N. Kapoor dated 29.10.1986.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the keys of the premises have been taken possession of by the Police from the petitioner, the same ought to have been returned to him. The learned lower court should not have interfered in the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate where there existed apprehension of breach of peace. None of these arguments are to the liking of the learned counsel for the respondents. His main grievance is that the petitioner intentionally did not disclose the pendency of a civil litigation concerning this very premises and succeeded in getting the desired result. In order to achieve that object, he even did not make his father a party who was and in fact is the interested person in any proceeding concerning the disputed shop.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I have no option but to reject the petitioner's contention for obvious reasons. It is an admitted case of the parties that civil litigation about the disputed premises is pending in the court of the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. Both the parties have been directed to maintain the status quo. At that time, the possession of the shop in dispute was with Inder Sain Kohli. This litigation is much prior in time than the initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner. In that situation, the proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr. P.