JYOTSNA SHARMA
Mahant Govind Sharan Ji Maharaj – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vageesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned AGA for the State.
Written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondent no. 3, have been taken on record.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents including respondent no. 3-Mahant Shri Lalita Saran Maharaj Deva Charya challenging the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2012 (Mahant Shri Lalita Saran Maharaj Deva Charya vs. State of U.P. and Others).
3. Following reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner:-
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the Ashram situated at Plot No. 199 (199Ka).
C. Issue any other and further order which this Hon'ble C
Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd.
Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasas Dubey
Indian Overseas Bank vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union
Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer
Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs. State and Another
Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others
Sanjai Kumar and Another vs. VIth Additional District Judge, Bareilly and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing breach of peace and the different objectives of the civil court and the Magistrate in cases of possession disputes.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of enquiry under section 145 Cr.P.C., focusing on de-facto possession and the applicability of section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in cases of emergency or when the Magis....
Parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are impermissible when a civil suit regarding the same property is pending, as the civil court's decisions on title and possession are binding.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and the need to abide by the final outcome of the civil suit in the context of applying Section 145 Cr.....
The court emphasized that when civil litigation is pending for the property and possession is involved, parallel criminal proceedings should not be permitted. The decree of the civil court is binding....
Executive Magistrates cannot initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC if a civil suit related to the same property is ongoing, as it encroaches on civil jurisdiction without established emergency....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.