The order of decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter of possession and the Magistrate is bound to drop the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and deliver possession in accordance with the order of the Civil Court.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17-12-1991 (Annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the City Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and the order dated 15-1-1994, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur to the extent the directions are given in these orders for delivering possession to the opposite party No. 2.

( 2 ) IT appears that on 12-5-1991, the police of Police Station Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur submitted a report to the City Magistrate that the petitioner Madan Pal Singh was a tenant of one room in the ground-floor and one room in the first floor of the disputed house and the remaining portion of the house is locked and was in possession of the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanchan Lata Saxena. It was further reported that the first party, namely Madan Pal Singh was threatening to take possession over the entire house and this may lead to breach of peace. On this report, the learned City Magistrate passed a preliminary order under S. 145 (1), Cr. P. C. on 13-5-1991. An order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. was passed attaching the premises in dispute. A further report appears to have been given that Madan Pal Singh had taken forcible possession over some part of the house and the Magistrate directed the police to attach those rooms also. On 30-5-1991, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Magistrate that the revisionist has broken the seal of one room and is using the same. A report was called from the police and, according to the police, the allegations of the opposite party No. 2 were correct. On 1-8-1991, the opposite party No. 2, namely Smt. Kanchan Lata Saxena moved an application before the Magistrate that in a civil suit No. 159/91 between the parties in respect of the same house, the Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur has made an order dated 23-5-1991 directing both the parties not to interfere in each others possession on the portions indicated in the order. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order holding that after the injunction order of the Civil Court, there was no necessity of continuing the attachment and that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , deserve to be dropped. He consequently withdrew the order of attachment and directed the police to release the property in favour of the parties in accordance with the order of the Civil Court. The petitioner, Madan Pal Singh filed a revision against this order. This revision has been dismissed by the I Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 15-1-1994.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and, in my opinion, there is no force in this writ petition. The only contention raised by the petitioner in the revisional Court and by his learned counsel before this Court, in this writ petition, is that the Magistrate committed an error in directing the police to hand over the possession in accordance with the order of the Civil Court.

( 4 ) IT is settled law and has been so laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. 1985 AWE 128 : AIR 1985 SC 472 : 1985 Cri LJ 752 and Dharampal v. Ramshri (Smt.), (1993) 1 SSC 435, that the order of decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter of this nature. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahants case, Honble Supreme Court has observed :"when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal Court should no