Initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 CrPC is not justified when a civil suit is already pending for the same property involving the question of possession, as it amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. On August 24, 1993 Promod Dass respondent filed a complaint 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, Distt. Jaipur alleging therein that one deceased Chotu Ram was the tenant of Khasra Nos. 299, 303 and 304 admeasuring 18 Bighas and 11 Biswas situate at village Rojdi, that the said Chotu Dass had legally and lawfully declared in 1985 the Respondent as his Chela and also executed a will to that effect on 4.3.92 and he entered into possession of the aforementioned land alongwith late Sri. Chotu Dass, that the petitioner had nothing to do either with late Sri. Chotu Dass or his land but when he started threatening respondent's possession over the disputed land and also created bad blood between the Respondent and the late Chotu Dass, the respondent had to file a suit for injunction against the petitioner and the Late Chotu Dass in a court of competent jurisdiction and obtained ad-interim injunction against them. It was further alleged that since the petitioner was bent upon dispossessing the Respondent from the land in dispute by forcible means, likelihood of breach of the peace had arisen. The learned Executive Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O. Police Station Phulera for enquiry and report. On July 20, 1993 the SHO submitted his report alongwith his complaint against both the parties informing the learned Executive Magistrate that a dispute concerning the land in question and likely to cause breach of peace between the parties existed within his jurisdiction. Though this police report was received in the office of the Executive Magistrate on 24.9.93 and was also put up before him on 21.12.93 but the proceedings under section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code were initiated as late as on 11.4.94 and the learned Executive Magistrate required the parties to attend his court and produce their written statements in support of their respective claims for actual possession over the subject-matter of dispute. At the same time the learned Magistrate attached the subject-matter of dispute under section 146(1) Criminal Procedure Code and appointed Tehsildar, Phulera to be the Reciever thereof. It is that composite order as passed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) G.P.C. on 11.4.94 which is being challenged through this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

3. At the very outset Mr. Narendra Jain, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 Promod Dass, submitted that the impugned order was an order revisable under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code by the concerned Sessions Judge and, therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. The objection raised by Mr. Jain carries weight. On the face of it the validity and legality of the impugned order may be examined either by this Court or by the Sessions Judge under their revisory power under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, when an alternate remedy has specifically been provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for redressal of a wrong to a party, recourse to the inherent powers of the court under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be made. Therefore, this petition is directed to be treated as a petition under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code.

4. It was then urged by Mr. Jain that it has been the practice of this court to stress upon the parties to respect hierarchy of courts in the matter of invoking their revisory powers under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, keeping with that practice and procedure and to maintain consistency in its views this court should direct the petitioner to approach the Sections Judge in the first instance.

5. section 397 Criminal Procedure Code confers revisory powers to examine the correctness, legality and validity of the orders passed by the inferior courts on the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge. Since in a given case this Court and the Sessions J