HARPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. S. Matbur, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-1-1994, passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, allowing the criminal revision Nos. 215/93 Har Pal v. Basudev and others and 223/93 Om Pal Singh and others v. State and quashing the orders dated 14-5-1993 and 18-5- 1993 under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. respectively. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge has further directed by this order, that, the property shall be released in favour of the opposite parties Om Pal and others.

(2.) IT appears that the police submitted a report under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on 2-5-1993 to the effect that there was a dispute between the parties relating to plot Nos. 138 and 204 of Khatauni No. 229, Village Aabidpur Kadi and there was apprehension of breach of peace in connection with the possession. A report was made to the Magistrate to draw; proceed ings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on this report, the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. He called upon the parties to maintain status quo and produce their evidence regarding possession of the land. On 18-5-1993, learned Magistrate, finding the case to be one of emer gency, ordered the attachment of the property under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. The property was accordingly attached and it was given in the Supurdgi of a Receiver on 25-5-1993. But later on Supurdar was changed and the pro perty was given in the Supurdgi of Gram Sabha.

(3.) I have heared learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is difficult to accept the sweeping submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that, once a civil suit is pending, no proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. could be initiated or continued. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 AWC 128, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parellal criminal pro ceeding under Section 145 of the Code. 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 2-5 was not in a position to chal lenge 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 parties 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. "