HARIJAN YELLAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has come up before us by way of a reference made by our learned brother Muktadar, J. The question which is of general importance that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Criminal Court has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. in respect of immovable property which is the subject matter of pending civil litigation, and if so, whether an order of the Civil Court on the question of possession, even for the purpose of giving an interim relief, is binding of the Criminal Court.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to this question are as follows :- The lands in dispute are situated in Gupta Village, Nizamabad District. In respect of these lands the petitioner filed O.S. No. 371 of 1978 in the Court of the District Munsif, Nizamabad claiming the relief of perpetual injunction; and an interim injunction was granted in I.A. No. 9 3 of 1978 and the same was made absolute on 2-12-1978. While so, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad first initiated proceeding under section 107, Cr.P.C. by his order of 16-12-78 and the same is said to be pending. Again on 4-1-1979 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. which was numbered as A4156/78. Summonses were issued under section 145, Cr.P.C. to both the parties. In the said summons it is stated that from the information laid before him the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exists between the parties regarding the possession of these lands. These proceeding are sought to be quashed in this criminal miscellaneous petition filed on 20-2-1979. It may be mentioned here that the respondents filed an appeal in the District court against the order of the District Munsif granting injunction but the same was dismissed and a civil revision petition filed in this Court against the said order is said to be pending. The fact however remains that there is an injunction order in force in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Both the learned counsel stated before us that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also ordered attachment of the properties but all the proceedings before him are stayed by an order of this Court, pending this petition for quashing the proceeding initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the initiation of the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. is illegal and without jurisdiction when the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court and when there is an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and that the injunction order is binding on the criminal Court. The learned counsel for the respondents on the others hand contends that the proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145, Cr.P.C. are not illegal or without jurisdiction and the injunction issued by the Civil Court does not preclude the Criminal Court from coming to its own conclusion. Both the learned counsel have cited decisions of the Supreme Court and various High courts in Support of these rival contentions.