The necessity for the Magistrate to record a finding of emergency before attaching the subject of dispute under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and the impact of the pendency of civil proceedings on the continuation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the attachment order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

By way of this petition. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30-7-2007 (Annexure No.1 to the petition) passed 5 by City Magistrate. Dehradun under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 29-5-2008 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge. Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.107 of 2007. Rameshwar Havelia v. State of Uttarakhand and another.

2. According to the petitioner he purchased the property bearing No. 183-1/1, Rajpur Road. Dehradun vide registered sale deed dated 30-1-2003 from respondent No.1 for Rs. 55 Lakhs. The entire payment was made through cheque. which was duly encashed by the respondent No.1 and since then the petitioner is owner in possession of the said property. The name of the petitioner has also been mutated in the Municipal records and all the taxes pertaining to the aforesaid property ever since the date of purchase are being paid by the petitioner. The further allegation of the petitioner is that after the purchase of the aforesaid property one Sri Jagdish Prasad had been permitted to reside in a portion of the aforesaid property, who expired on 22-7-2007 without leaving any heir. One Pradeep Sharma, ex-employee of Jagdish Prasad was also staying with Jagdish Prasad as his guest at the time of his death. After the death of Jagdish Prasad, Pradeep Sharma was requested to leave the aforesaid property, but he started claiming the right of residence and also started to encroach upon the aforesaid property and creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid property and ultimately he left the aforesaid property on 25-7-2007. The petitioner also alleged in the petition that Pradeep Sharma, who is the permanent resident of Australia conspired with the police and some land mafias and started claiming his right over the aforesaid property. Therefore on 30-7-2007 the petitioner was compelled to file a civil suit for injunction (Suit No. 319 of 2007) before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun along with interim injunction application and on the same day learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. restraining the defendant Pradeep Sharma from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in question. On 6-8-2007 Pradeep Sharma put his appearance in the aforesaid suit of injunction and filed an application stating therein that in case the suit is decreed, he has no objection, Pradeep Sharma also moved an application before the City Magistrate. Dehradun for initiation of proceedings u/S 145 Cr.P.C.

3. The petition further reveals that, the City Magistrate passed an order on 30-72007 u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. and u/S. 146(1) Cr.P.C. and illegally attached the property as the injunction order has already been passed on 30-7-2007. Thereafter Pradeep I Sharma also appeared before the City Magistrate in the proceeding u1S. 145 Cr. P.C. and moved an application on 6-8-2007 stating therein that he has no concern with the property in question as he has already left the same and now there is no dispute between Rameshwr Havelia-petitioner and Pradeep Sharma with regard to the property in question as such the proceeding u/s. 145(1) and 146(1) Cr. P.C. be dropped. Subsequently the petitioner also filed an application before the City Magistrate for dropping the proceedings. but the learned City Magistrate instead of dropping the proceedings, exceeded his jurisdiction by unnecessarily keeping the property under attachment and also tried to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court.

4. Against the order dated 30-7-2007 passed by the City Magistrate. the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Judge. Dehradun (Crl. Rev. No. 107 of 2007). During the pendency of the criminal revision, the respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of the sal