Pending civil proceedings take precedence over concurrent criminal proceedings regarding land possession.

1. This application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Cr.PC), has been filed by the opposite party, praying for quashing of Case No. 15m of 2010, under S.145/146 of the Cr.PC, now pending before the learned Executive Magistrate, Amingaon, Kamrup (Rural), Guwahati.

2. Heard Sri A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Sri B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. I have also perused the documents annexed with the criminal petition.

3. The criminal case has been filed by the respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioners attempted to occupy / encroach the suit land on 10.3.2010, which led to law and order situation. On the basis of the said application, the proceeding under S.145, Cr.PC was drawn up vide order dated 12.3.2010. By the same order, the learned Executive Magistrate also attached the disputed land in exercise of powers conferred under S.146(1), Cr.PC. Initially, one M/s. Brahmaputra TMT Bar (P.) Ltd. was impleaded as the opposite party. After taking cognizance of the case, the petitioner, namely, M/s. Brahmaputra Iron and Steel Company (P.) Ltd., filed a petition before the learned Executive Magistrate stating that the land is in their possession and, in fact, they are the necessary party. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 was also impleaded in the aforesaid criminal proceeding.

4. Sri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having learnt about the criminal proceeding, the petitioner No. 1 has filed a Title Suit, being T.S. No. 352 of 2011 in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, praying for a decree of possession and also permanent injunction against the defendant i.e., the first party in the criminal case. According to the learned counsel, on the basis of the application filed under order XXIX, Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (CPC), the learned Munsiff has passed ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land vide order dated 2.9.2011. According to the learned counsel, since the dispute of possession has been carried to the civil court, the criminal proceeding may not be allowed parallely as it will multiply the proceedings. The learned counsel also submitted that any order or decree passed by the civil court will prevail over any order passed by the criminal court and in support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied upon several decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. On the other hand, Sri All, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that in the Title Suit, the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that the plaintiffis the owner of the land, inasmuch as, no prayer for passing a decree for title has been made. Sri Ali further submitted that there is no bar to continue with the criminal proceeding simultaneously as the objective behind the criminal proceeding is different from the civil suit. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Devendra v. State of U.P. , 2009 (7) SCC 495 .

6.Under S.146, Cr.PC, an Executive Magistrate may attach the subject of dispute ' until a competent civil court has determined the rights of the parties thereto' with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The issue as what would be the implication of passing an interim injunction order by a competent civil court upon an attachment order passed by a learned Executive Magistrate under S.146, Cr.PC came to be considered before the Apex Court, in the case of Dharam