DEVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. SARDARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-Sardara Singh in this revision petition lodged a complaint under Sections 120-B, 448 read with Section 109 I.P.C. against (1) Jaswant Singh (2) Walaiti Ram, (3) Gurnam Singh, and (4) Davinder Singh, alleging that the complainant took on lease a plot belonging to Rajindra Deva Orphanage, Patiala, through Iqbal Singh, the previous honorary Secretary of the said Orphanage. He has also alleged that he had taken another plot contiguous to the above said plot. The further allegation is that the accused had filed a civil suit against the complainant for ejectment from the premises in dispute and there was a compromise also. But the material allegation is that the first accrued-Jaswant singh during the continuance of the period of tenancy in favour of the complainant and while he was in possession of the premises legally, had let out front portion of the premises to the accused Nos. 2 to 4 (mistake for accused No. 2 and 3 only) and thereby they have committed trespass. The petitioners herein filed two applications before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. By the first application the petitioners and others sought the dropping of the proceedings and by the second application, they sought the stay of proceedings. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, considered both the applications and passed a common order dated 28.9.1993. In so far as the request for dropping the proceedings are concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that of the civil suits, one was a civil suit for recovery of damages for Rs. 50,000/- referred to above by the petitioners herein while the other suit was for mandatory injunction and thus civil suits have no connection with the complaint wherein the accused are alleged to have trespassed into the property in the possession of the complainant. Therefore, by observing that it was not proper at this stage, to go into the evidence, he dismissed that application for dropping the proceedings. So far as the second application by which the present petitioners had made an alternative prayer for stay of the proceedings is concerned, the learned Magistrate held that there was no ground for staying the criminal proceedings inasmuch as all the accused are not even involved in the civil proceedings. Therefore, he has dismissed the second application also. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

(3.) THEREFORE , while dismissing this petition, I direct that the Civil Suit No. 394 of 15.4.1990 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala, as well as complaint Sardara Singh v. Jaswant Singh and others under Sections 120-B, 448 read with Section 109 I.P.C. pending before the CHief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, should be tried by the same Judicial Officer separately but simultaneously. Therefore, I direct the concerned Sessions Judge, Patiala, to entrust both the criminal complaint as well as the civil suit mentioned above to some Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction, who will try hear the complaint as well as the civil suit separately but simultaneously and dispose of them at the same time by separate order/judgment.