ATMA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Atma Singh and four other petitioners for quashing the entire proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. initiated by order dated 20.5.1994 recorded by Sri A.K.Jaiswal, learned Executive Magistrate, Danapur in case No. 326(M) 94, as well order dated 28.10.1994 recorded by Sri J.P.Ambastha, learned Executive Magistrate, Danapur in the same case. By former order, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'Code ' in short) was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code and by later order, the property was attached under Section 146 of the Code and the Court appointed Officer -in -charge, Mane Police Station as receiver.

(2.) THE argument on behalf of the petitioners is, under short compass, that Title Suit No. 122/94 is pending in the Court of Munsif, Danapur between the same parties and relating to same disputed land besides some other lands in which the question of title and possession both are involved, hence parallel proceeding cannot run in a Court with criminal jurisdiction. For this, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2000(1) PLJR 885, in the case of Madan Mishra vs. Triloki Nath Pandey and others. The learned counsel for the other side has relied upon a decision in the case of Jhumma Mal @ Devan Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (1988)4 SCC 452.

(3.) IT is well settled that in case a civil litigation is pending for the same property in which question of possession is also involved, then a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is not justified since either parties can approach the Civil Court for adequate relief so long the suit is pending. This is what has been held in the judgment of this Court, mentioned above, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. Same was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahanth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in which case, the suit having been dismissed, the appeal was pending before the Appellate Court, hence it was held that when Civil litigation was pending for the property wherein the question of possession was involved and has been adjudicated there was no question of parallel proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.