The decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in matters of possession and dispute resolution, and parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue.

MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subdivision Magistrate, Jaisalmer dated March 29, 1986 by which he refused to drop the proceedings pending before him under Section 147, Cr. P. C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

( 2 ) ON the complaint of non-petitioner No. 3, Han Vallabh, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were commenced and the disputed house was attached by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, jaisalmer and the S. H. O. Jaisalmer was appointed as the receiver by order dated January 13, 1983. This order of attachment was set aside by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 116/83 decided on January 11, 1985. The possession of the disputed house was given back to the petitioner and three co-owners. Subsequently, the said proceedings were converted under Section 147, Cr. P. C. One Han Kishan and non-petitioner No. 5 Parmanand have filed a regular suit in the court of the Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer for declaration and possession against the petitioner and three co-owners and their vendor Mst. Haribai (Non-petitioner No. 4 ). The petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer for dropping the said criminal proceedings on the ground that these criminal proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously with the civil proceedings. After hearing the parties the learned Magistrate rejected the application by his order under challenge.

( 3 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly criminal proceedings are pending since the year 1983 on the ground of apprehended breach of peace and during this period of over 7 years breach of peace was not committed. He further contended that enquiry under Section 147, Cr. P. C. has not as yet commenced regarding the subject matter of dispute under Section 147 Cr. P. C. same dispute is involved in the civil suit and as such two parallel proceedings should not be allowed to go on and the learned Magistrate seriously erred not to drop the criminal proceedings. He relied upon Ramsumerpuri Mahant v. State of U. P. .

( 4 ) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that admittedly civil suit was sub-equently filed and as such there is no question of dropping the criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed upon Dr. Ramesh Chardar Sinha v. State, of Bihar. He also contended that the petitioners and three corners are not allowing the civil suit to proceed further and have adopted dilatory tactics in it.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were started in the year 1983, they were subsequently converted under Section 147 Cr. P. C. and there after avil suit was filed. It is not in dispute that no breach of peace took plate over the disputed property during these seven years. Admittedly, the disputed property was attached under section 145 Cr. P. C. , the order of attachment was quashed by the Court and the possession of the property was given back to the petitioner and three other co-woners. There is nothing on the record to indicate that an\enquiry under Section 147, Cr. P. C. has commenced to far. In Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar, (supra) the civil suit was filed long after order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was passed. This is not the position here. Admittedly, no order has so far been passed under Section 145 Cr. P. C. The following observations made in Ramsumerpuri Mahant v. State of U. P. , (supra) fully applies in this Case: There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us, Counsel for the respondent 2-5 was not in a position to challange the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction