Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. for possession of property cannot be dropped solely on the ground that a civil suit involving the same property is pending, if the civil suit does not involve the determination of title or possession over the property.

V. N. MEHROTRA, J.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 28. 2. 89 by Sri S. S. Ashutosh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, District Allahabad, dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C.

2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of the report by S,o. P. S. Handia dated 9. 9. 86 the S. D. M. concerned initiated proceeding under Section 145 Cr. PC. and passed order under Section 145 (i) Cr. P. C. on 15. 9. 86. The proceedings related to agricultural "land. The first party, Smt. Usha Devi asserted that there was apprehension of breach of peace. The second party, Rakesh Kumar, filed written statement asserting that he was the owner of the land in question. He also asserted that he was in possession over the land and that the first party was not in possession over the same. He also asserted that a civil suit is pending before the authorities in respect of the same land, hence the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. could not be filed or continued. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 4 also filed the written statement making allegation against the opposite party No. 1 They also alleged that a suit was pending in the court of Munsif concerned in respect of the property in dispute. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order held that as a civil suit was pending in respect of the property which was in dispute in the proceedings, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. these proceedings cannot continue. Reliance was placed on the rulings in the cases Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U. P, 1985 (22) ACC 45 (SC) and Shiv Muni Pandey v. Bharti Lal, 1988 ALJ Page 123. In this revision it has been asserted that the learned Magistrate was totally wrong in dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. merely on the ground that a suit had been filed by Smt. Usha Devi. They have asserted that in that suit neither the question of title nor the question of possession was in issue, hence merely because Smt. Usha Devi had filed that suit which was for main tenance, the learned Magistrate could not have dropped the proceedings.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as by counsel for the opposite parties. It will be proper to refer to the ruling in the case of Ram Sumer Puri (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Magistrate. In Ram Sumer Puns case a civil suit was pending between the parties, includ ing some relatings of the plaintiffs, in respect of certain immovable

property. The suit was for possession and injunction. It was a title suit in respect of that property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which an appeal was filed which was still pending before the appellate court when proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated in respect of the same property. It was on these facts that the Supreme Court held that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. should not continue. It was observed that 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 S. 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. It was further observed that the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 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 jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.

4. Thus in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document