G SUDERSHAN REDDY Vs. JEEVAN LATHA SRIVASTHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings arise under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the mistake is purely that of the Court of Munsif Magistrate, West and South, Ranga Reddy and whoever was the Presiding Officer at that time he has to be blamed for the reason that had injunction been granted this problem would not have arisen and even if the injunction was refused,this problms would not have arisen. Having recorded that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner in I.A.No.513/1993 in O.S.No.l92/1993, the Court-below did not grant injunction positively, but only grantes status quo on 24-8-1993. Obviously, the lower Court did not want to state reasons either for grant of injunction or for grant of exparte injunction orders which the statutory provision mandates and has taken recourse to the easy way of granting status quo, as no reasons need to be stated and the same can be ordered in a light-hearted fashion. Litigants approach the Court of law for resolving their disputes and not for perpetuating the same. This is a case where the litigation was perpetrated instead of resolving the same as by a definite order either positive or negative these series of Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings could not have emanated. Parties and their counsel are also partly to be blamed as for two long years, they did not care to get the interlocutory application disposed of and the major blame has to be only on the Court which was seized of the civil matter. I am restraining from making any observations with regard to the rights of the parties for the reason that the Court of Munsif Magisgrate has to adjudicate and any observation by this Court would cause prejudice to either of the parties. In the circumstances. I hold that both the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in L/2554/95 and L/5154/93 on the file of the Court of of Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella of Ranga Reddy District were invalidly initiated. When the Civil Court was seized of the matter, it was incumbent upon the Court of Magistrate to direct the parties to get the dispute settled by the Civil Court. It is pertinent to note that the suit was initiated much earlier than Sectionl45 Cr.P.C. proceedings. With regard to possession, it is admitted by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3482/95 that possession of the lands was fraudulently delivered by panchanama dated 26-4-1995. Be that as it may, this possession which was delivered on 26-4-1995 is not the point for consideration by the Court of Munsif Magistrate, West and South, as in that suit and in the interlocutory application what is to be determined is as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession as on the date of the filing of the suit. Till that I.A. is disposed of one way or the other the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3158/95 shall be entitled to cultivate only such portion of the disputed lands where there is a standing crop and on the land which is vacant neither party shall enter. Even the continuance of the possession of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3158/95 shall be only ad hoc as in the event of the civil Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff in I.A.No.513/1993 for which the date be reckoned is the date of institution of suit the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3158/95 have to automatically vacate the land in compliance of the injunction orders. However, if injunction is not granted by the civil Court in I.A.No.513/93 then the persons to whom the possession was delivered under panchanama dated 26-4-1995 will continue until the disposal of the suit I direct the Munsif Magistrate West and South to completely ignore the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also the order passed under Section 145(1) therein including that of panchnama of delivery of possession dated 26-4-1995 while adjudicating I.A.No.513/93 or O.S.No.192/93. The said Court shall dispose of I.A.No.513/93 within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

(2.) BOTH the criminal petitions are disposed of.