RAMVEER SHARMA Vs. SHAILENDRA DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant takes exception to the order dated 19.07.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhind in Case No. 102/2016, by which the application preferred by the applicant under section 145 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed as being not maintainable.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of instant revision petition are that applicant is claiming to have purchased the disputed house on 31.12.2009, which was reduced in writing on execution of the sale agreement. However, same seller i.e. Shivnarayan Sharma is alleged to have executed another sale deed in favour of the present respondent No.1-Smt. Shailendra Devi, despite the fact that the house was already in existence and in possession of the applicant. The subsequent transfer of the disputed property in favour of respondent No.1 is subject matter of the civil suit No. 28-A/2011 filed by the present applicant seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 as null and void, which is pending adjudication before the civil court.

(3.) In the year 2013, an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C was preferred by the applicant which was registered as case No.104/2013, although the same was rejected as being not maintainable vide order dated 10.04.2014. It is pertinent to highlight that prior to dismissal of case No. 104/2013, the prayer for temporary injunction made by the applicant in civil suit No. 28-A/2011 was declined by the civil court vide order dated 17.11.2011 and such rejection got stamp of approval from this Court by order dated 09.05.2013. In the prevailing circumstances, the present applicant citing apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility preferred another application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C which was registered as case No. 102/2016. Yet, again the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate declined to interfere by passing the order dated 19.07.2016, in the background of the fact that the civil court as well as the same authority in case No. 104/2013 has declined to grant any protection in favour of the applicant.