The main legal point established is that the Executive Magistrate should not pass an order under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. when a competent civil court is seized of the same matter, and the initiation of parallel criminal proceedings in such circumstances is not justified.

1. This Revision is against the order of the Executive Magistrate passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in M.C.No.4 of 1992 on 112. 1993.

2. The respondent herein filed an application before the Executive IInd Class Magistrate, Tindivanam claiming that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties comprised in R.S.No.378/18, R.S.No.378/14, R.S.No.280/5, R.S.No.379/1 and R.S.No.379/2. He further contended that the petitioners herein are unlawfully interferring with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that there is

apprehension of breach of peace and therefore invoking the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate Under Section 145, the respondent herein pleaded for an order restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession. Learned Executive Second Class Magistrate passed an order on 112. 1993 restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the Civil suit filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by this order of the Executive Magistrate this Revision is preferred.

3. It is not in dispute that already a suit has been filed in O.S.No.634 of 1992 by the respondent herein against the Revision Petitioners for injunction. It is also stated that along with the suit an application was also filed seeking for interim injunction and that no injunction was ordered by the District Munsif, Tindivanam. The suit relates to R.S.No.265/4 and R.S.No.266/2. Those two items are part of the properties relating to which the relief under Section 145 was sought for. In this connection it is fruitful to refer to the decision of His Lordship T.S. Arunachalam, J. reported in, Indira and 2 others v. Dr. Vasantha and 2 others, 1990 TLNJ (Crl.)., 67. It has been held by His Lordship as follows:

"The initiation of parallel proceedings when the identical matter in respect of the disputed property was pending in a Civil Court wherein the question of possession was involved, initiation of parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. would not be justified."

Here the proceedings has been initiated under Section 145 after the filing of the suit before the Civil Court. The Executive Magistrate was also apprised of this fact. When the Civil Court which is competent to grant injunction has not chosen to consider it as a fit case to grant interim injunction, it was not proper on the part of the Executive Magistrate to have ordered injunction. It virutually amounts to usurping of jurisdiction, which he has none. The Executive Magistrate ought not to have passed any order when a competent Court is seized of the same. Moreover, the order does not disclose that the Magistrate apprehended breach of peace. Therefore, in such circumstances, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate is unsupportable. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to have passed such an order. Therefore, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate suffers from material irregularity and the irregularity is of such a nature that cannot be cured. Therefore, I held that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

4. In the result, the Revision is allowed. The order passed by the Executive Magistrate dated 112. 1992 is hereby set-aside.