IBRAHIM Vs. JULIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filled by the petitioner, accused in C.C.No.4248 of 1985 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondent who is said to be running a health club in the premises belonging to the petitioner has instituted a criminal complaint complaining of offences under Sections 448, 42 7 and 380 I.P.C. The respondent, the complainant, had also instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.4138 of 1985 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, and also obtained an interim injunction and had also asked for appointment of a Commissioner to note that she is in possession of the premises.

(2.) THE Contention of the petitioner is that there cannot be parallel criminal and civil proceedings and since the respondent had moved the civil court in this regard, the complaint regarding trespass will have to be stayed. In support of this contention, the petitioner cites Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P., (1985) M.L.J. 752: (1985) S.C.C. 42 7: (1985) All W.C. 128: (1985) L.W. (Crl.) 84: (1985) S.C.C. (Crl.) 98: (1985) M.L.J. (Crl.) 175: A.I.R. 1984. 472 where the Supreme Court held that in a case where the title of the property is decided by a civil court, there cannot be proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in the course of the judgment observed as follows: -THEre is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed.- That was a case where the title dispute was finally adjudicated by the civil Court which had resulted in a decree whereas in this case, the respondent had only filed a suit and adjudication by the civil Court is yet to follow. Under the circumstances, if the- petitioner-s argument is accepted, then anybody can, with impunity, indulge in any criminal act after filing a civil suit. THE above decision of the Supreme Court rendered in respect of a case where the title had been already decided by the civil Court cannot be applied to the facts of this case.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, there are no merits in this petition and hence the same is dismissed.