The court emphasized the importance of fairness and balancing convenience in possession disputes, ultimately leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings in view of a pending civil suit.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also filed a Civil Suit where the temporary injunction has been granted in his favour and this is not a matter where proceedings should be continued in a criminal court. It is submitted that, continuation of the proceedings, in criminal court in the case like one will amount to abuse of the process of the court. It is submitted that before the impugned order was passed, the suit had already been filed wherein interm order had been passed by Munsif, Kota City, North. In this view of the matter propriety demand that order dated 20th July, 1987 should not have been passed. He submits that he undertakes to handover the possession of the premises to Jaswant Singh, in case, injunction order is vacated by the Munsif or that the civil court does not accept his prima facie claim of possession. He also submits that he will agitate his right in civil court even after quashing of the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. PC and will not withdraw the suit so as to defeat non-petitioner's right and if he withdraws, he will not agitate the dispute of handing-over the possession. The offer made by the petitioner is very fair and sporting. In view of the above undertaking the proceedings Under Section 145 and 146 shall be deemed to be quashed in view of the pendency of the civil suit provided that the petitioner within one week shall file a written undertaking to the above effect in the court of Addl. Collector, City Kota, where the proceedings are pending. It is also made clear that if the proceedings continue and it is found essential to the interim order then the court will ensure that either party, namely the two main claimants do not suffer, ultimately in other words the rent to be paid by the petitioner should be deposited in the court and this money should be given to the party who ultimately is found to be entitled thereof because in such matters where a third person is putting possession by one of the owners to defeat the claim of the another owner, it is always advisable that balance of the convenience should be maintained. With the aforesaid observations this petition is disposed of. The trial court shall quash the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC provided aforesaid undertaking in unequivocal words is filed.

*******