Back
1992 Supreme(All) 340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prasad
NIHAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Revision 982 Of 1991
Decided On : 05/22/1992
A.B.L.GAUR, VIRESH MISHRA
Proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be initiated during the pendency of a civil suit involving the same subject matter.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 145 CR. P. C. - SECTION 145(1) AND 146(1) CR. P. C. - SECTION 107/116 CR. P. C. - PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 145 CR. P. C. CANNOT BE INITIATED DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CIVIL SUIT INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, Nihal Singh, filed a civil suit against Sardar Singh for a permanent injunction against interference with his possession of a shop. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was obtained, but later rejected. Nihal Singh appealed the rejection, and the appellate court allowed the appeal and reinstated the injunction. Despite this, Sardar Singh initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. for possession of the same shop. The City Magistrate ordered attachment of the shop, which Nihal Singh challenged in this revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were illegal and without jurisdiction, as they were initiated during the pendency of the civil suit involving the same subject matter. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments which held that criminal courts must honor decisions rendered by civil courts, and that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue.
Issues: Whether proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. can be initiated during the pendency of a civil suit involving the same subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be initiated during the pendency of a civil suit involving the same subject matter. The court reasoned that criminal courts must honor decisions rendered by civil courts, and that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue. The court also noted that the civil court had already granted an injunction restraining Sardar Singh from interfering with Nihal Singh's possession of the shop.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. and vacated the orders of attachment.
( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment- and order dated 26. 6. 199 1 passed by the learned City Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No. 13 of 1991 State v. Sardar Singh and another under section 145 Cr. P. C. suspending the proceedings and directing for continuing attachment of the shop of the revisionist.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are that the revisionist Nihal Singh filed a civil suit being the civil suit No. 463 of 1990 Nihal Singh v. Sardar Singh on 9. 4. 1990 for a permanent injunction against the defendant from in terfering with his possession over the shop No. 9/3 situate in Bagh Muzaffar Khan, Agra. The plaintiff Nihal Singh moved an ad- interim injunction application simultaneously with the institution of the said suit. An ex parte ad- interim injunction was obtained by him on the basis of that application. The defendant Sardar Singh filed objection against the ad-interim injunction application. The ad-interim injunction application was ultimately rejected on 11. 5. 1990 while setting aside the injunction order passed thereon. Against the rejection order dated 11. 5. 1990 the plaintiff Nihal Singh preferred a Misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 149 of 1990 Nihal Singh v. Sardar Singh. That appeal was allowed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Agra vide his detailed judgment and order dated 25. 4. 1991 while allowing the ad-interim injunction application and setting aside the order dated 11. 5. 1990 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Agra rejecting the same. The learned IX Additional District Judge, Agra restrained the defendant Sardar Singh through his aforesaid judgment -and order from evicting Nihal Singh illegally from the shop in dispute during the pendency of the aforesaid suit.
( 3 ) IT is further alleged that Sardar Singh concealing all the facts regarding the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter moved an application before the City Magistrate, Agra on 20. 4. 1990 for the initiation of the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The learned City Magistrate called for a report from the police station Han Parwat vide his order dated 25. 4. 1990. The police submitted report on 27. 4. 1990 allegedly in collusion with the opposite party No. 2 Sardar Singh. A telegram to that effect was sent to the District Magistrate, Superintendent of P0 lice Agra, City Magistrate and S. H. O. , P. S. Han Parwat each vide Annexure-1. The police also initiated proceedings under section, 107/116 Cr. P. C. which is still pending.
( 4 ) IT is further alleged that the City Magistrate re-acting on the basis of wrong information supplied by the police, passed a preliminary order under section 145 Cr. P. C. and also ex-parte stay order dated 28. 4. 1990 for attachment of the disputed shop. But that order was not implemented during the period 28. 4. 1990 to 10. 5. 1990. The shop in dispute was, however, attached by the police on 11. 5. 1990.
( 5 ) IT is further alleged that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. were collusive and illegal. The opposite party No. 2 Sardar Singh also moved a review application before the learned IX Additional District Judge, Agra, which was also rejected. The learned City Magistrate was under the influence of Sardar Singh. The appellant Nihal Singh moved a transfer application supported with an-affidavit vide Annexure-4 against the learned City Magistrate for transfer of the case from his court to some other competent court. It is further alleged that the transfer application was pending and a copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned IX Additional District judge, Agra was available and yet the learned City Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 26. 6. 1991, which is illegal and against the law and facts. This criminal revision has been preferred against the said order as mentioned earlier.
( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel
