PARAS RAM Vs. SITAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming to be owner in possession of the property described in the petition to the extent of 1/2 share, the respondents herein filed an application under section 145 Cr. P.C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Jammu. It was alleged that they were predecessors-in- interest of Saran and after his death were continuously in possession to the extent stated hereinabove. The petitioner herein has no right to interfere with their possession. It was alleged that the petitioner herein wanted to forcibly dispossess them which had created a situation warranting an action under section 145 Cr. P.C. The Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 3rd October 1985 passed a. preliminary order and directed the attachment of the property the subject matter of the dispute.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Executive Magistrate, the petitioner and one Sarsa Ram filed a revision petition before the learned and AddI. Sessions Judge, Jammu who vide his order dated 23- 12-1985 dismissed the same and up-held the order of the trial Magistrate. The revisional court below was influenced by the judgment of this court in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1971 decided by Honble Justice Mufti Bahaudin-Farooqi on 25th November 1971 and reported in 1972 JKLR 268.1 It was held in that judgment that the jurisdiction of a magistrate is not ousted simply because the suit about the same immovable property is pending in the civil court. The learned II AddI. Sessions Judge ignored a subsequent judgment of this court delivered in Criminal application No. 97 of 1985 decided on 31st May. 1986 reported in 1986 KU 4492 which was based upon a Supreme Court Judgment reported as AIR 1985 SC 472. It was held by this court in the latter judgment that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. were unwarranted and liable to be quashed when civil litigation with regard to the same subject is already pending and civil court has passed interim orders with regard to possession of the property in dispute.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record: