RAM SURAT SONKAR Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 3.1.1995 and 24.1.1995. By the first mentioned order, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh has passed an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C., and by the order dated 24.1.1995, revision against the first mentioned order has been dismissed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and, in my opinion, there is no force in this writ petition. It would appear that an order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P.C., was passed in respect of the land in dispute. The contention of the petitioner. Ram Surat Sonkar was that the land belonged to the temple while the opposite parties 3 and 4 claimed it to be a burial ground. The Magistrate passed the order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P.C., on 3.1.1995 and on the same day, he passed the impugned order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P.C., directing the attachment of the land in dispute. A suit, being suit No. 475/91 was pending between the parties in the court of IX Additional Munsif, Azamgarh and on an application for temporary injunction, the Court has directed the status quo to be maintained.

(3.) IN Harpal v, State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 313 of 1994. decided by me on 7.2.1995, these two decisions were interpreted and it was observed that, according to these decisions, the proceedings under Section 145 will be incompetent on account of pendency of a civil suit only if that suit relates to question of title and possession and the civil court has either decided the question of possession, even by way of interlocutory order, or this question is still open for determination and the parties could approach the civil court for appropriate orders in regard to the injunction or appointment of a receiver. It has been further held in the said case that, merely because the civil court passes an order of status quo, the Magistrate will not be divested of his jurisdiction under Section 145, Cr. P.C. because the civil court, in such a case, could not be said to have either decided the question of possession nor it could be said to be a case where the parties did not approach the civil court for appropriate orders. IN two other decisions of this Court, namely, Raju and others v. State of V. P. and others. 1994 (31) ACC 537 and Raj Bahadur and others v. State of U. P. and another, 1994 (31) ACC 654, decided by Hon'ble K. L. Sharma. J. and Hon'ble R. R. K. Trivedi. J., also, it has been held that, an order of the civil court for maintaining status quo cannot divest the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed under Section 145, Cr. P.C.