PAWAN SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) By means of present revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dtd. 28/4/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.10, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2010 (Deepankar Pandey vs the State of U.P. and another) filed by the opposite party no.2 by which the revisional court set aside the order passed by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, under Ss. 145 and 146(1) Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that civil suit, which was subsequently filed, is pending between the parties.

(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur is absolutely erroneous as learned court below has failed to consider that the civil suit is not in the right to possession but simply on the question of possession and prayer was made in that suit that he may not be evicted except adopt due procedural law. It was further contended that the Apex Court in the judgement of Prakash Chand Sachdeva vs State and another reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1436 has held that merely pendency of civil suit between the parties can not be a ground for dropping the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. if there is no title or right of possession to the subject matter of suit. The civil suit was filed by the opposite party no.2 subsequent to the initiation of proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that there is some dispute between the parties on the basis of agreement to sale cannot be a ground to drop the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C.