GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. S D M PANIPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a land dispute between the petitioner Gram Panchayat and respondents Nos. 2 to 7. Regarding this land the respondents filed three separate suits against the petitioner on Feb. 27, 1986. Temporary injunction applications were also filed in the suits upon which the trial Court issued ad interim injunction restraining the present petitioner from interfering with the possession of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 during the pendency of the suits. This order was passed on March 27, 1986. Thereafter on April 10, 1986, the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 initiated proceedings under S.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') against the petitioner regarding the same land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, issued notices to the parties to appear before him and to file their respective claims. Simultaneously, under S.146 of the Code the disputed land was attached and Naib Tehsildar, Panipat, was appointed as the Receiver. The petitioner Gram Panchayat has sought the quashing of the proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, under Ss.145 and 146 of the Code.

(2.) It is held by the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P., (1985) 1 Chand LR (Cri) 521 that : "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under S.145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents Nos. 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed." The present case is fully covered by the dictum of the Supreme Court. Civil litigation is pending between the parties in respect of the land in dispute, wherein question of possession is also involved. Hence, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Ss.145 and 146 of the Code would not be justified.

(3.) The learned respondents' counsel referred me to a single Bench judgment of this Court in Nachhattar Singh v. Gurinder Singh, (1983) 2 Chand LR (Cri) 125, wherein it was casually observed that when the interim injunction of the Civil Court restraining the other party from interfering with the possession of one party is in force then proceedings under S.145, Code of Criminal Procedure, could be launched only in aid of the order of the civil Court. This observation runs counter to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant, (1985 Cri LJ 75) (supra) and, therefore, this view cannot be followed. For aforesaid reasons the present petition is allowed and the orders of the Magistrate by which the proceedings under Ss.145 and 146 of the Code have been initiated are quashed. Petition allowed.