BACHCHA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21 -3 -1998 and 23 -3 -1998 passed by the S.D.M, Bansdih and Sessions Judge, Ballia respectively. By the order dated 21 -3 -1998 the S.D.M, Bansdih had directed that earlier orders passed by his Court on 12 -8 -1988 and 9 -4 -1991 may be implemented on the ground that there was no stay against those earlier orders. The Sessions Judge, Ballia had dismissed the revision against the order of the S.D.M dated 21 -3 -1998, which was for implementation of earlier orders dated 12 -8 -1988 and 9 -4 -1991 on the ground that the revision against those orders had already been rejected on 5 -9 -1991 by his predecessor Sessions Judge, Ballia. The writ petition bearing No. 6411 of 1991, which was thereafter preferred by the applicant/revisionist was also dismissed on 23 -1 -1992.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a civil suit was pending between the parties before the civil Court at Ballia and as the civil suit was pending, parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. ought not to have been permitted. The applicant, however, has not been able to show any order of the civil Court or of the SDM under Section 145 Cr. P.C. holding the applicant to be in possession or to be entitled to the possession of the property.