Parallel proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, cannot be permitted when a civil court is already seized of the dispute regarding possession, especially in the case of educational institutions, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and disruption of studies.

A.P.Chowdhari, J.

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner claims to be a lessee for 99 years of certain land situate in Sarani Khawaja, District Faridabad. He is running an Ashram known as Gurukul Indraprastha, where 200 to 300 students were studying. Respondent No. 2 started intervening in petitioners possession and the petitioner accordingly instituted a civil suit which is pending in the Court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Faridabad. Along-with the suit, the petitioner made an application for temporary injunction. The learned Additional Senior Sub Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, Annexure P 1, on the same day, i.e. 23.5.1986, directing the defendants not to interfere in the plaintiffs possession except in due course of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the injunction continues to be in full force, uptil today. On an application made for the purpose, the learned Subordinate Judge appointed a Local Commissioner who visited the property, in question the same day at 6.00 p.m. and found the petitioner to be in possession thereof. Along with the petitioner were present about 20/25 followers and about 25 students under the age of 15. He submitted his report Annexure P-2, dated 26.5.1986. On the same day i.e. on 23.5.86, Sh. Sat Dev Bharti, respondent No. 2, made a report to police on the basis of which the police made a report to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notices to both the disputants, i.e. the petitioner and Shri Sat Dev Bharti to appear before him and to file their respective statement of claims with regard to the actual possession of the property in dispute. Both the said parties put in their claims and proceedings are still going on.

2. On 2.6.1986, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballabhgarh; attached property under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a result of which the petitioner was dispossessed from the property

3. On an application made by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, it was impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the said proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The petitioner moved an application dated 13.11.1986 before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Ballabhgarh for dropping the proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and also for revoking the order of attachment passed therein. Copy of the petition is Annexure. P-3. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order dated 12.2.1987, Annexure P 4, declining the prayer of the petitioner. It is this order, Annexure P-4, which has been impugned in this revision as illegal and void ab initio.

5. Respondent No. 2 Sh. Sat Dev Bharti failed to appear and to contest this revision petition.

Shri Anand Swaroop, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3, raised a preliminary objection. He contended that the present revision is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has relied on Kartar Singh and others v. Smt. Pritam Kaur and another, 1984(1) Recent Criminal Reports 617 (1984)2 I.L.R. Punjab & Haryana 139,in which a Division Bench of this Court held that order of attachment under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inherently temporary in nature and no revision there against was maintainable in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the preliminary objection cannot prevail. What the petitioner prayed for in his application, Annexure P-3, was that the proceedings under section 145 including the order attaching the property passed therein be dropped. In other words, the application was not confined only to releasing the property from attachment. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered both th