When a civil litigation is pending for the same property involving possession, a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is not justified.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Atma Singh and four other petitioners for quashing the entire proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. initiated by order dated 20.5.1994 recorded by Sri A.K.Jaiswal, learned Executive Magistrate, Danapur in case No. 326(M) 94, as well order dated 28.10.1994 recorded by Sri J.P.Ambastha, learned Executive Magistrate, Danapur in the same case. By former order, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code in short) was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code and by later order, the property was attached under Section 146 of the Code and the Court appointed Officer-in-charge, Maner Police Station as receiver.

2. The argument on behalf of the petitioners is, under short compass, that Title Suit No. 122/94 is pending in the Court of Munsif, Danapur between the same parties and relating to same disputed land besides some other lands in which the question of title and possession both are involved, hence parallel proceeding cannot run in a Court with criminal jurisdiction. For this, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2000(1) PLJR 885, in the case of Madan Mishra V/s. Triloki Nath Pandey and others. The learned counsel for the other side has relied upon a decision in the case of Jhumma Mal @ Devan Das V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (1988)4 SCC 452.

3. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has drawn my attention to the impugned order which in detail discusses the cases of the rival parties and submits that not only Title Suit No.122 of 1994, but two other title suits are pending between the same parties, and a case under Section 188 of the Code and another under Section 107 of the Code as well other criminal cases. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the case needs to be decided under Section 145 of the Code, in view of tense situation prevailing there between the parties which may explode any day.

4. It is well settled that in case a civil litigation is pending for the same property in which question of possession is also involved, then a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is not justified since either parties can approach the Civil Court for adequate relief so long the suit is pending. This is what has been held in the judgment of this Court, mentioned above, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. Same was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahanth V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in which case, the suit having been dismissed, the appeal was pending before the Appellate Court, hence it was held that when Civil litigation was pending for the property wherein the question of possession was involved and has been adjudicated there was no question of parallel proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.

5. In the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel of the opposite party, in the case of Jhumma Mal @ Devan Das (supra) facts were not similar. Their lordships, referring to a judgment of the same Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahanth V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1985)1 SCC 437 had reiterated that ratio of that decision was that a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter. After this, it was observed that aforesaid did not mean that a concluded order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. mada by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party had approached the civil court. In this case, there is no concluded order of the Executive Magistrate finally disposing of case under Section 145 of the Code.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalindi Devi V/s. The State of Bihar and others, reporte