ASHFAQ HUSSAIN Vs. ENTRAM HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against revisional order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, allowing revision against order u/S. 146(1) Cr. P.C. and quashing orders u/S.145(1) and 146 Cr. P.C. and quashing the entire proceedings.

(2.) Revisionist Ashfaq Hussain moved application u/S. 145 Cr. P.C. in respect of plot, situate in Kusha Ujhani, District Budaun. On the said plot Ziaratganj Bux, Mosque and Musafir Khana are noted in the record of Sunni Central Waqf Board. SDM Budaun felt satisfied on the police report dated 18/06/1989 that there is dispute between the applecant Ashfaq Hussain and opposite parties of the application Lal Mool Chand. Entram Husain and as a consequence of dispute there is apprehension of breach of peace. Hence on 4/07/1989 he issued preliminary order u/S.145(1). On 7/07/1989 on being satisfied that there was imminent danger of breach of peace, he issued order for attachment u/S. 146(1).

(3.) Opposite party No. 1 to this revison Entram Husain filed revision before the Sessions Judge against aforesaid order u/S. 146(1). This revision was entertained. Municipal Boards, Ujhani (Opp. party No.3 of this revision) sought permission to address the court. That permission was granted. It appears thee Ehatram Husain filed some documents on the basis of which the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that litigation was pending on the commencement of the proceedings. Hence, following the law laid down in case of Ganga Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh (AIR 1958 Allahabad 803) Ram Sumerpuri Mahant v. State of U. P. (AIR 1985 SC 472) and Sheo Murti Pandey v. Bharti Lal Pandey, (1988 All LJ 123), learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there is no justification in continuing parallel proceedings. The learned Additional Sessions Judge distinguished the case of Ibbe Hasan v. State of U.P. (1989 All LJ 869). The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that the Municipal Board can apply for being impleaded in the suit already pending about the disputed property. With these findings the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order.