Parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 and 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. should not continue when a civil suit for the property involving questions of possession is pending, and the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri (Khagaria) in Case No. 549 of 2015 by which he has initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and also attached the land under the proceeding under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. and appointed Anchal Adhikari, Parbatta as receiver to cut the crops with the help of Officer-in-Charge, Parbatta Police Station to sell it and deposit the sale proceeds in Nazarat of Anchal Parbatta so that after decision over the entitlement, the same may be returned to the rightful claimant.

2. The question for determination before this Court in the present case is relating to validity or otherwise of preliminary order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and sustainability of the order of attachment passed under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C.

3. The lands under proceeding as per the order dated 28.05.2015 are as under:-

Mauza Thana No. Tauzi No. Khata No. Khesra No. Area

Bigha-Katha-Dhur

Jagua 365/2 525 15 135 01-16-16

115 136 01-07-14

106 55 01-19-03

109 56 00-16-05

103 117 01-00-03

127 139 01-17-12

4. The opposite party nos. 4 to 6 filed Gogri (Khagaria) Case No. 549 of 2015 in which the Anchal Adhikari and the Officer-in-Charge, Parbatta submitted a joint report on 27.05.2015 and, thereafter, the opposite party nos. 4 to 6 filed a petition on the same day that there is a serious apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioners, who are adamant to forcibly dispossess the opposite parties from their exclusive land. The opposite parties no. 4 to 6, thus, prayed for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and for attachment of the disputed land and its crops under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C.

5. After perusal of the joint report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari and the Officer-in- Charge, Parbatta to the effect that there is apprehension of breach of peace, the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 has been passed.

6. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that earlier a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between the same parties for lands of village Jagua over plot nos. 136, 117 and 66 and notices were issued to the parties, who appeared before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gogri and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri, vide order dated 07.05.2015, dropped the proceeding in view of the respective show causes filed by the parties from which it reflected that in respect of the land in dispute Title Suit No. 149 of 2014 was pending between the parties. It also appears that on 27.05.2015 itself on the basis of a petition filed by the opposite party no. 4, another case, vide Case No. 548 of 2015, was initiated between the parties under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the parties were restrained from going over the disputed land bearing Thana No. 365/2, Tauzi No. 525, Khata No. 118, 103 and 90, Khesra No. 136, 117 and 66 of village Jagua and they were asked to file their written statement.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid undisputed facts, Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the private opposite parties have filed Title Suit No. 149 of 2014 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Khagaria on 11.11.2014 relating to the lands in the proceeding under Section 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. in which the question of right, title and possession are involved and in which after notices parties have appeared and an injunction petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by the plaintiffs, which is pending for disposal.

8. He submitted that once Title Suit No. 149 of 2014 has been filed between the parties and an injunction petition has also been filed in the suit, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding under Se