GIRISH CHANDRA UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard R. C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. K. Tripathi Advocate for the caveator and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. In the circumstances, the writ petition is being heard finally.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the suit under Section 229b of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is pending, therefore, the learned Magistrate should have stayed his hands and could not proceed under the provisions of Section 145 146 Cr. P. C. in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Maluint v. State of U. P. & Ors. , 1985 (22) A. C. C. 45 (SC), following in a number of other decisions.