BIND BASNI RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Sahay, J. This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC. which were initiated on the basis of a report dated 17-7-1984 submitted by S. O. Zamania. It was stated in the report that there was apprehension of breach of peace on account of dispute between the parties with regard to the possession of certain Abadi land and building. The learned S. D. M. Zamania heard both parties and found that the parties are in joint possession of the property and hence it is not possible to take action under Section 145, Cr. PC. He passed an order dated 27-8-1984, directing proceedings to be started against the parties under Sections 151, 107, and 116, Cr. PC. Ashok and others, who are opposite parties No. 2 to 4, in the present revision made an application in the Sessions Court for revising the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate. The revision was heard by the learned Special Judge, Ghazipur and was allowed by order dated 24-1-1985. The order passed by the learned S. D. M. was set aside and the case was sent back to him for disposal of matter according to law. The revisionists feeling aggrieved from the order dated 24-1-1985, have come to this Court in revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned Assistant Government Advocate. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 4. It is urged on behalf of revisionist that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is erroneous and proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC. are not main tainable in respect of joint property. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that a Civil Suit for partition has been brought by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 in respect of the property in dispute and since that suit is still pending, it will not be proper to initiate proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the same properties. He has relied on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State & Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 472 in support of his contention. It has been held in that case 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 to 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 parlies 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"