HUTCHEGOWDA Vs. M R VENKATESHA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for consideration in this petition is whether a Criminal Court should proceed under S.145 CrPC in respect of immoveable property which is the subject matter of civil litigation pending in a Civil Court. The facts leading to the present proceedings under S.145 CrlPC are these:

(2.) The first respondent before me filed a suit against the petitioner (OS.No.35 of 1971) on the file of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram, Bangalore District, for a permanent injunction" restraining the petitioners from interfering with the possession of Sy.No.457, measuring 6 acres 26 guntas and Sy.No.424, measuring 1 acre 27 guntas of Mynayakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk.His case was that he was in possession of these lands and therefore his possession should be protected. On an application filed for issue of interim injunction, the learned Munsiff, on consideration of the material placed before him by both the parties by his order dt. 17-4-1971 took the view that the first respondent was not in possession of the said Sy. Numbers on the date of the suit and consequently vacated the interim injunction granted by him earlier. The correctness of this decision was challenged before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore in MA.46 of 1971. The learned Civil Judge confirmed the. decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The first respondent thereafter filed a Revision Petition (CRP.No.832 of 1972) in this Court challenging the correctness of the Courts below.

(3.) This Court dismissed the revision petition on 4-10-1972. Thereafter the first respondent complained to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District stating that the petitioners were obstructing him from cultivating the said Sy. Numbers and requested police help to cultivate the lands. It appears that the Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Police of Channapatna, who sent a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram stating that a dispute existed between the petitioners and first respondent in respect of the said two survey numbers and that there was likelihood of breach of peace in the locality and therefore action may be taken under S.145 CrPC. On the basis of that report the Sub- Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was a dispute in respect of the said two survey numbers and each party was trying to take possession of the schedule property and 'there was likelihood of breach of peace. Therefore, he initiated proceedings under S.145 CrPC and passed an order under sub-sec. (4) of S.145 CrPC attaching the two lands. It is this order that is challenged in this revision petition. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the first respondent failed to get an order of temporary injunction against the petitioners in the Civil Court. In the suit filed by the first respondent, the Civil Court has come to the conclusion that on the date of the suit the first respondent was not in possession of the lands. It us submitted by Mr. Mohandas Hegde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the fact of a suit pending before the Civil Court at the instance of the first respondent was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also about the fact of refusal of interim injunction in favour of the first respondent. As soon as the proceedings were initiated under S.145 CrPC, the petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the facts and circumstances of the case must have been brought to his notice, and also the fact of a Civil suit pending in respect of the same lands.