Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 307
PATNA HIGH COURT
Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J.
Madan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 877 of 1990 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1990
When a civil litigation is pending for a property wherein the question of possession is involved and is adjudicated upon, the initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC is not justified.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 145 - SECTION 144 - SECTION 482 - POSSESSION DISPUTE - INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING - PENDENCY OF CIVIL SUIT - JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURT - INTERPRETATION OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RAM SUMER PURI V/S. STATE - APPLICABILITY OF DECISION IN SAJJAN SINGH V/S. SAJJAN SINGH - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
Fact of the Case:
A proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was initiated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate (SDM) regarding a land dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party. The petitioners challenged this proceeding by filing an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that a civil suit (Title Suit No. 34/89) was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Siwan, in which the same land was the subject matter of dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC was not justified when a civil litigation was pending for the property wherein the question of possession was involved and was adjudicated upon. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Sumer Puri v/s. State, wherein it was held that multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties and that public time should not be wasted over meaningless litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the SDM was justified in initiating a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC when a civil suit was pending before the Subordinate Judge regarding the same land dispute. 2. Whether the decision in Ram Sumer Puri v/s. State was correctly interpreted and applied by the SDM.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the decision in Ram Sumer Puri v/s. State to mean that the initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC was not justified when a civil litigation was pending for the property wherein the question of possession was involved and was adjudicated upon. The court distinguished the facts of the present case from those in Sajjan Singh v/s. Sajjan Singh, wherein the civil suit was only for permanent injunction and not for declaration of title or confirmation of possession.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 20-1-1990 passed by the SDM initiating the proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC with respect to the disputed land.
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the Code,) has been filed by the second party to the proceeding (M 2689/80) under Section 145 of the Code pending in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siwan. It is directed against the order dated 20-1-1990 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siwan by which the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code was initiated against both the parties with respect of the land in dispute and also for quashing the entire proceeding.
2. It appears that opposite party No.2 had filed a petition before the Sub divisional Magistrate, Siwan impleading the petitioners as the second party and alleging therein that revisionalsurveyplotNo.395, Khata No.171 of Village Ujain P.S. Daramda measuring an area of 5 bighas 2 kathas 3 dhurs was recorded in the revisional survey katian as Sheottar land and was being cultivated by Chandeshwar Singh and five others on Batai basis and the income therefrom was spent on the maintenance for temple and rag bhog of lord Shiva. It was alleged that the present petitioners were lathials and they intended to loot the standing paddy crop from the aforesaid plot which was grown by the Bataidars namely Chandeshwar Singh and five others.
3. On the basis of this petition a report was called for from the officer-in-charge, Daraunda Police Station and on the basis of his report a proceeding was started under Section 144 of the Code. The petitioners had appeared in the said proceeding and in their show cause they contended that opposite party No. 2 had filed this application on behalf of Chandeshwar Singh and five others who had already filed Title Suit No.34/89 against the petitioners with respect of the suit land in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siwan. An injunction petition filed by them for restraining the petitioners from going over the land in dispute was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 8-1-1990 and that this fact has been concealed by opposite party No. 2 in his petition filed before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siwan, Dineshwar Singh one of the plaintiffs of the said suit happens to be the nephew of opposite party No. 2. Accordingly the petitioners pray that the proceeding started against them be dropped, -this prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siwan.
4. Chandeshwar Singh and others had filed Civil Suit No. 34/89 with respect of R.S. Plot No. 395 before the Subordinate Judge, Siwan against the petitioners challenging that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners was not binding on the ground that the vended land was Sheottar land. Further a prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and other from interfering with the possession of the deities. The suit is still pending before the Subordinate Judge, Siwan. The opposite party No. 2 is in no way concerned with the land in dispute and has no right, title and possession over the same. The plaintiffs of the suit are not parties to the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. However, by the impugned order the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Siwan ordered for starting of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code with respect to the suit land. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that they have got bona fide title and possession over the land in dispute and the matter is pending determination in the Title Suit before the learned Subordinate Judge, Siwan. On this ground it has been contended that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate should not have passed the impugned order dated 20-1-1990 for starting a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code with respect to the land in dispute.
5. I have heard the parties. It appears that a Title Suit (Civil Suit No. 34/ 89) was filed by Chandeshwar Singh, Babban Singh, Kanhaiya Singh, Jagarnath Singh and Dineshwar Singh against the present petitioners before the learned Subordinate Jud
