SUDHAKAR SHASHTRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOSE two revision petitions are directed against the order dated 2nd September, 1985, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he vacated the orders dated 24th November, 1983 and 13th January, 1984, passed under Section 145, Cr.PC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also passed an order dropping the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. PC. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd September, 1985, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions before this Court.

(2.) FROM the facts disclosed in the case it appears that there two parties one is the petitioner himself and the other is Harindra Mirdha, Rajendra Mirdha and Madan Singh. From the record it also appears that party No. 1 filed a civil suit for injunction against party No. 2 on 26th August, 1983. Party No. 1 obtained an injunction order from the Civil Court restraining party No. 2 from dispossessing him from the plot situated on Jai Singh High Way, bearing No. C -21, measuring 4511.11 sq. yds. Non -petitioners No. 2 to 4 (Party No. 2) purchased the said plot in the name of Indra Associate Private Limited from Shri Prem Chand Jain, who got it from M/s. S.R. Nagpal and Sons. The said plot was given to M/s S.R. Nagpal and Sons on 19th August, 1974, according to the judgment of the Bombay High Court. Aggrieved by the order of injunction, Party No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which was transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 17th November, 1983 and vacated the injunction granted in favour of party No. 1 and against party No. 2. It is also on record that against the decision of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 17th November, .1983, a revision petition was filed before this Court which was also dismissed. Leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.

(3.) IT is thus, clear that two parallel proceedings are continuing, one under Section 145, Cr. PC and another a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Jaipur. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumerpuri Mahant v. State of U.P. : AIR1985SC472 , came to the conclusion that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow the party to have the pleasure of litigation in civil Court as well as in criminal court and, ultimately passed an order by which the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.PC were dropped.