BHUSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Illegalities shown by the learned counsel for petitioner are, first for the same land Partition Suit No. 86 of 2005 was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-Ist, Aurangabad, second there was no emergency essential for satisfaction of the Court to pass the impugned order. A.I.R. 1985 SC 472 is referred on the point that when the matter is pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction (Civil Courts) proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. 1983 P.L.J.R. 257 a decision of Patna High Court is referred for application of jurisdiction under Sec. 146 Cr. P.C. existence of emergency or urgency.

(3.) In the case of A.I.R. 1985 SC 472, principle is decided by the Supreme Court that when a civil litigation is pending for the property where in the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. is not justified. In that case, matter in controversy was decided by competent Civil Court and then only proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. was initiated while in the instant case, partition suit is pending only without any relief on the point of possession of the parties over the particular piece of land.