Point of Law: Proceedings under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. are only in the interest of the maintenance of peace and not in the interest of the preservation of the rights of any party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of present revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.10, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2010 (Deepankar Pandey vs the State of U.P. and another) filed by the opposite party no.2 by which the revisional court set aside the order passed by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, under Sections 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that civil suit, which was subsequently filed, is pending between the parties.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur is absolutely erroneous as learned court below has failed to consider that the civil suit is not in the right to possession but simply on the question of possession and prayer was made in that suit that he may not be evicted except adopt due procedural law. It was further contended that the Apex Court in the judgment of Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs State and another reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1436 has held that merely pendency of civil suit between the parties can not be a ground for dropping the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. if there is no title or right of possession to the subject matter of suit. The civil suit was filed by the opposite party no.2 subsequent to the initiation of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that there is some dispute between the parties on the basis of agreement to sale cannot be a ground to drop the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further relied on the case of Amresh Tiwari vs Lalta Prasad Dubey and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1504, wherein the Apex Court has already held in the case of Jhummamal alias Devandas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in, (1988) 4 SCC 452 : (AIR 1988 SC 1973 : 1989 Cri LJ 82) that "this authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is pending does not mean that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code should be set a naught. In our view this authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this case the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code had resulted in a concluded order. Thereafter the party, who had lost, filed civil proceedings be quashed. It is in that context that this Court held that merely because a civil suit had been filed did not mean that the concluded order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should be quashed. This is entirely a different situation. In this case the civil suit had been filed first. An order of status quo had already been passed by the competent civil court. Thereafter Section 145 proceedings were commenced. No final order had been passed in the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Ram summers case (AIR 1985 SC 472 : 1985 Cri LJ 752) (supra) fully applies. We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed. Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil Court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate."

5. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State submits that there is apprehension that civil suit is pending between the parties and they can adjudicate their rights through civil court, therefore, there is no purpose for proceedi