MUNNA KHAN Vs. MUSTAK AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Criminal Revision No.113/2014, whereby the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shivpuri, in Case No.12/2009 under Sec. 145 of Crimial P.C. dated 7.7.2014 has been confirmed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are that SHO, police Station Physical Chowki, Shivpuri, filed a complaint under Sec. 145 of Crimial P.C. before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shivpuri, on the ground that dispute between the parties is likely to cause a breach of peace. The dispute was regarding the property situated near Motibaba Temple Road Survey No.112 Ward No.92. It is alleged that respondent No.1 wants to take possession of the property on the basis of sale-deed dated 23rd Jan., 2006. It is further submitted that petitioners have filed a civil suit which is pending in the Court of Third Additional District Judge bearing RCS No.04-A/2012 and there is an interim order not to disturb the possession of the petitioners. It is further submitted that before SDM prayer was made for rejecting the case under Sec. 145 of Crimial P.C. on account of pendency of civil suit and also the fact that petitioners are in possession of the suit property, but without considering the said documents and injunction order passed by the trial Court, the SDM passed order on 7.7.2014. It is further submitted that petitioners have already filed a private complaint against respondent No.1 before the CJM Shivpuri in respect of the said forged sale-deed and the Revisional Court without considering the merits of the case affirmed the order of the SDM passed under Sec. 145 of Crimial P.C. The main ground which has been taken by the petitioners is in regard to pendency of the civil suit and also the fact that a private complaint is pending before the Court of CJM, therefore, SDM should not have passed the impugned order which has been affirmed by the Revisional Court in the revision.

(3.) The issue which is to be given consideration is whether the Revisional Court erred in passing the impugned order despite pendency of civil suit and a private complaint on the same subject matter. Learned Sessions Judge has noted the fact that prior to this, order passed under Sec. 146 of Crimial P.C. on 18.2.2010 was subject matter of revision case No.19/2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.3.10 and against this order M.Cr.C.No.1805/2010 was filed before the High Court wherein vide order dated 8.2.2012 the order passed in revision was maintained by the High Court and further directions were issued to the subordinate Court to decide the proceeding under Sec. 145 of Crimial P.C. within a period of two months. It is also mentioned that a Misc. Appeal No.423/2012 was filed in which vide order dated 20th June, 2013 subordinate Court was directed to continue the proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C.