GHANI SHAMDASS ANAND Vs. SHAKTI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Station House Officer, Police Station, Pacca Danga Jammu submitted a report to the Sub-Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging the existence of a dispute regarding possession of a room of House No. 70 situate in Gali Khilonian, Jammu, between Shakti Parkash and his brother Ram Krishen on the one hand and Ghanisham Dass on the other hand. The learned Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate, initiated proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. and drew up a preliminary order on 18-1-1984. the property was also brought under attachment simultaneously. After the parties produced evidence the learned Magistrate vides order dated 22-3-1984 held Shakti Parkash of the first party to be in possession of the premises within two months from the date of his dispossession by the second party and directed that he be put in possession. The said order was impugned through a revision petition before the learned 1st. AddI. Sessions Judge, Jammu who, on 7-1-1985 dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this second revision in this court.

(2.) Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the judgment of the learned 1st. AddI. Sessions Judge on the ground the since Shakti Parkash and Ram Krishen besides some others had filed a civil suit seeking declaration of their title 10 the estate of Smt. Durga Devi, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. could not continue even in the revisional court. In support of this submission Mr. Sehgal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, wherein it has been held 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 proceedings under Section 145 of the Code.

(3.) Mr. R.P. Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court instead of helping the petitioner goes against them. He submitted on facts that the civil suit has been filed the determination of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Argued learned counsel that mere filing of a civil suit after the determination of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. by the trial court is not a bar to the continuation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in the revisional court and that the bar countenanced by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1885 S.C. 472 (Supra) was not attracted in this case.