RAJ RAGHUVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the SubDivision Magistrate, Jaisalmer dated March 29, 1986 by which he refused to drop the proceedings pending before him under Section 147, Cr. P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) On the complaint of non-petitioner No.3, Han Vallabh, proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. were commenced and the disputed house was attached by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, jaisalmer and the S.H.O. Jaisalmer was appointed as the receiver by order dated January 13, 1983. This order of attachment was set aside by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 116/83 decided on January 11, 1985. The possession of the disputed house was given back to the petitioner and three co-owners. Subsequently, the said proceedings were converted under Section 147, Cr.P.C. One Han Kishan and non-petitioner No. 5 Parmanand have filed a regular suit in the court of the Additional District Judge, Jaisalmer for declaration and possession against the petitioner and three co-owners and their vendor Mst. Haribai (Non-petitioner No.4). The petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer for dropping the said criminal proceedings on the ground that these criminal proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously with the civil proceedings. After hearing the parties the learned Magistrate rejected the application by his order under challenge.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly criminal proceedings are pending since the year 1983 on the ground of apprehended breach of peace and during this period of over 7 years breach of peace was not committed. He further contended that enquiry under Section 147, Cr.P.C. has not as yet commenced regarding the subject matter of dispute under Section 147 Cr. P.C. same dispute is involved in the civil suit and as such two parallel proceedings should not be allowed to go on and the learned Magistrate seriously erred not to drop the criminal proceedings. He relied upon Ramsumerpuri Mahant v. State of U.P..