ARJUNRAO Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had initiated proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short' the Code') before the learned S.D.M Jaora in respect of the property known as 'Rangmahal'. The Magistrate made an interim order placing the property in the hands of a receiver. After a bi -party hearing the learned S. D. M. found that the applicant Arjunrao was in possession within 2 months of the making of the application and, therefore, directed that the property be handed over by the receiver to him. Aggrieved by the order the non -applicants approached the Sessions Court and contended that civil suit was pending in respect of the property between the parties, and, therefore, the S. D. M. should not have initiated the proceedings or should have terminated them on learning about the pendency of the civil proceedings. The learned Sessions Court set -aside the order and stayed further proceedings in the Court of S. D. M. till the disposal of C.O.s.No.5 -N83 pending between the parties.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The proceedings u/s 145 of the Code were instituted on 12.1.1983.Notice were ordered to be issued to the parties on 15.3.83. The non -applicants appeared through their counsel and disclosed to the Court that a civil suit was pending between the parties and an injunction has also been passed in that suit on 22.3.83 a copy of the order of the civil Court was also produced before the S.D.M. on 22.12.83, after hearing the parties the S.D.M. passed an order attaching the property and putting it in custody of a receiver. Prior to that on 25.10.83 the N. As. herein moved an application praying for stay of further proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil suit Unfortunately in this application and its reply on behalf of other side details about the civil suit as regards when it was filed and who are the parties to that suit, are not there. On 15.12.83 also an application was moved by the N. As. herein for cancellation of an order restraining transfer of the property. In this application also no details about the civil suit are given.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances when the Sessions Court has ordered stay of the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code it has not committed any illegality or impropriety. It is clear that on the date of the initiation of proceedings u/s 145 of the Code a civil suit between the parties on the same subject matter was pending.