JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant/ applicant No. 1 Jagannath and others, aggrieved of an order passed under S. 146(1), Criminal P. C., of attachment of the subject of the dispute, i.e. a shop, approached the revisional Court. The revisional Court upheld the order of attachment and directed to drop the proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved of this order, the applicants have come under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing of the order dt. 23-9-88 of Sessions Judge, Datia passed in Cr. Revision No. 39/88 and order dt. 21-3-1988 passed in Case No. 13/145/88 by SLM, Datia.

(2.) The relevant facts which are not in much dispute are:

(3.) Shri B. R. Sharma, counsel for the applicant, placing reliance on two decisions of the apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 472: (1985 Cri LJ 752) and Jhunamal alias Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1973. (1989 Cri LJ 82) contended that in view of the fact that a civil suit was already instituted, in respect of the same subject of dispute, i.e. the shop, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P. C.; particularly when the Civil Court after hearing the parties to the dispute, finding a prima facie case in favour of the applicant, passed the order of temporary injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, restraining the defendant/ non-applicant No. 2 not to interfere the possession, there was no occasion to SDM to pass the order of attachment nor there was any such emergency, for exercising of the powers under S. 146(1). Reliance was also placed on a short-noted decision in Harkishanlal v. Subhash Chandra, 1991 (2) MPWN 135.