When the Civil Court has granted an interim injunction in a suit between the same parties regarding the same properties, parallel proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Kumaran, J . - First respondent-Jagdish, who is the brother of Hazari, petitioner herein, presented an application under Section 145 read with Section 146 Criminal Procedure Code before the Executive Magistrate, Narnaul (File No. 18 Criminal Procedure Code1996) on 26.3.1996. On the same day, the Executive Magistrate, Narnaul passed an order (annexure P-3) that it was made to appear that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed between them concerning an extent of 141 kanals and 3 marlas of land situated in village Bamanwas Nau (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute), that he was yet to decide as to which of the parties was in possession, that he was satisfied that there was imminent danger of breach of peace and, therefore, he was ordering attachment of the land in dispute with the standing crops. He also authorised the Naib Tehsildar (M), Narnaul to attach the land with the crops and keep the same in his possession until the rights of parties and the claim of possession are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The Executive Magistrate, Narnaul also passed a similar order on 21.5.1996 authorising the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) instead of the Naib Tehsildar (M) to effect the attachment and keep the property in his possession, as directed earlier (annexure P-4). Subsequently, on 29.5.1996, vide annexure P-5, the Executive Magistrate passed an order confirming earlier orders passed by him and directing that the land in dispute shall remain attached till final decision by the Civil Court and that the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) who has already been appointed as Receiver, should lease out the land.

3. In doing so, the Executive Magistrate, Narnaul took note of the allegation of Jagdish (1st respondent herein) that he is the owner in possession of half share of the land in dispute which has not been partitioned, that the cultivation of the parties is joint, that there is well with an electric motor, that an application for partition is pending in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul, and that the petitioner and his men had interfered with the possession of the 1st respondent herein. the Executive Magistrate also took note of the objection of the petitioner herein that the 1st respondent had no locus standi to file the application, that the petitioner was neither given any notice nor heard before the passing of the order of attachment, that the 1st respondent had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the year 1991, that his application for interim injunction was dismissed by the Civil Court on 17.11.1992, that the appeal against the same was also dismissed on 8.12.1993, that the application filed by the 1st respondent before the Executive Magistrate was not maintainable since the Civil Court had found the present petitioner to be in possession, that the present petitioner was in possession of the entire land in pursuance of an agreement to sell, that in similar proceedings, an order was passed on 8.3.1994 holding that there was no apprehension about any breach of peace etc.

4. The Executive Magistrate found that the agreement for sale is not registered and merely on the basis of the agreement for sale, the present petitioner cannot become the owner in possession of the land, that there is no sale deed in his favour, and that it is clear that the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein are joint owners in possession of the land in dispute to the extent of half share each. He also held that there is apprehension of breach of peace between the parties regarding the land in dispute and, therefore, the land in dispute shall remain attached till the final decision of the Civil Court, and the Naib Tehsildar (Receiver) should lease out the property. This order was passed on 29.5.1996 (annexure P-5). As against this, the present petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 46 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which was dismissed by him as n