Point of law: When a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the 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, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should pubic time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsels for appellant, Sri Rakesh Kumar and respondent, Sri U.S. Sahai, Advocates.

2. The instant petition in hand is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court over the order dated 30.7.2020 of learned Session Judge of District 'Barabanki' passed in exercise of his revisional power over the order dated 22.10.2020 of S.D.M., Nawabganj under Section 145/146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

3. Briefly stating, the matter is with regard to dispute as to the harvesting of paddy crop in Plot no.950 situated in village Rustampurwa, Khaspariya, District Barabanki between two brothers, natural heirs of recorded owner Late Krishna Kumari wife of Late Sri Shivpal Singh her sons, namely the petitioner Virendra Singh and opposite party no.6, Brijendra Singh with opposite party no.2 to 5, her grand sons, the sons of opposite party no.6. Late Krishan Kumari who died on 14.8.2020 had executed a registered will on 4.7.2013 in her life time bequeathing all her properties movable and immovable to the grand sons opposite parties no.2 to 5. Since, Late Krishna Kumari was residing with her son Brijendra Singh (opposite party no.6) therefore, after the death the grandsons by virtue of the registered will dated 4.7.2013 came into possession of above said plot no.950 as rightful title holder and their name is also mutated in the revenue records in place of recorded tenure holder Late Krishna Kumari on the basis of her will.

4. Petitioner aggrieved from the 'will' dated 4.7.2013 filed a suit for cancellation of the same and for injunction bearing original suit no.1032 of 2020 on 1.10.2020 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division which is pending for decision. Since he, was allegedly causing interference in use and enjoyment of property to the opposite parties therefore, they approached to the superintendent of Police, 'Barabanki' on 7.10.2020 who referred the matter to the local Police Chowki of Mohammadpur, P.S. Kotwali Nagar. A report was submitted by the Inspector in-charge of the said police post before Sub Divisional Magistrate that a dispute is running between the parties with regard to harvesting of paddy crops and they are made bound of order under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and subsequently under Section 146 Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2020.

5. The order dated 22.10.2020 aforesaid was challenged by the opposite parties no.2 to 6 in revision before the court of District and Sessions Judge, whose decision allowing the revision is under challenge before this Court quoting Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has observed:-

"Learned SDM has to record his satisfaction regarding emergency of situation and dilemma to the actual possessor over the disputed property. Learned SDM may exercise the power under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. only after satisfaction to the emergent situation and unable to satisfy himself regarding the actual possessor of the disputed property. The power under Section 146(1) CrPC may not be exercised without satisfaction of an emergency.

Learned SDM has no jurisdiction to decide the right and title of parties. Any dispute in regard to right and title of the parties may only be decided by the Civil Court. In case of pendency of Civil Suit regarding right and title of parties in spite of issuance of injunction order by the Civil Court, the collateral proceeding under Sections 145, 146 CrPC is not proper.

Learned SDM has passed the order of attachment under section 146(1) CrPC merely on the ground of apprehension to breach of peace. Learned SDM has not recorded any finding or observation in regard to emergent situation. Learned SDM has not exercised jurisdiction properly while passing the impugned order. Mere apprehension of breach of peace is not sufficient for attachment proceeding under Section 146(1) CrPC."

6. To see whether the impugned order passed by the learned S