BICHITRANANDA MISRA Vs. ACHUTANANDA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed against the order dated 23.12.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 136/94 arising out of an order dated 13.9.1994 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Salipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24/94 holding that the proceeding between the parties under section 145 Cr. P.C. at the instance of the first party, that is, the petitioner herein is not maintainable.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct. Even if there is a decree passed by/the Civil Court, ft cannot be said that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. are not maintainable as held in (Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. The State and anothers).

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the facts in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1436 (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court in a title suit claiming partition of the jOint family property in T.S. No. 55/1993 which is pending for trial in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Second court, Cuttack. Their further submission is that as per the principles laid down in (Ram Rumer Pun Mahant v. State of V.P. and others) and also by this Court in (Kela Khatua v. Baidhar Khatua and others, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not valid and proper and needs no interference in this revision petition. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of late Sitanath Misra whose widow is opposite party no.4 in this revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for her even denies the fact of adoption. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have already admitted his adoption and cannot do so now.