Point of Law: Once the right of parties is settled by a forum then proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to continue as the same would be abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Bimal Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Hari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State. No one appears on behalf of the private respondents.

2. The revisionists have challenged the order dated 15.7.2009, passed by the S.D.M., Chakia, Chandauli by which the application of the revisionists for dropping the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C., on the ground that civil proceeding regarding the land in dispute is already pending and injunction has been granted in his favour and issue of title has been decided by the D.D.C., Chandauli, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that D.D.C., Chandauli by order dated 23.8.1983, had already decided the title in favour of the revisionists against which a review application was filed by the private respondents which was rejected on 11.2.2011 by the D.D.C. against which Writ Petition No. 13761 of 2011 was preferred before this court which was also dismissed by order dated 8.3.2011.

4. It is further submitted that a civil suit No. 182 of 1994 was also filed by the revisionists for permanent injunction in which application of the revisionists for temporary injunction was allowed by the civil court by order dated 8.4.1996 and injunction order is also continuing. It is also submitted that the name of the revisionists have already been mutated in the revenue record and Khatauni 1409-1414 fasali of the same has been annexed at Page55 of the revision. The contention of the counsel in a nutshell is that once the civil proceeding regarding property is pending and title regarding same property was also decided by the D.D.C., then the S.D.M. has no jurisdiction to proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand learned A.G.A. submitted that there is a report of police station that there is apprehension of breach of peace for taking the possession of the property in dispute, therefore, proceeding was rightly initiated.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and it is clear from the record that a civil suit No. 182 of 1994 regarding same property is pending before the Civil Judge, Chakia and an interim injunction was also granted in favour of the revisionist and also D.D.C. Chandauli by order dated 23.8.1983 has also decided the title regarding the property in dispute in favour of the revisionists. This order has been affirmed up to this Court, therefore, there is no occasion on the part of the S.D.M. to further proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. after knowledge of the above fact.

7. The Apex Court in the judgment of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 472) has observed that when the proceeding in civil court is pending regarding a property then S.D.M. has no jurisdiction to proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. against the said property.

8. In the case of Kunj Bihari vs. Balram and another, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 66, the Apex Court observed that once the right of parties is settled by a forum then proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to continue as the same would be abuse of process.

9. In the case of Mohd. Abid and other vs. Ravi Naresh and others passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 5444 of 2022, the legal position explained by the Apex Court in paragraph-4 of the judgement is quoted below:-

"4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction in which ex-parte adinterim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end. The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court."

10. A full Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in AIR 1959 All 141 (Ganga Bux Singh vs. Sukhdin) has settled the position regarding proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and observed that it is only in the interest of maintenance of peace and not in th