AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 259 wordsPritpal Singh, J.
Shri Inderjit Singh, respondent No. 3 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner Bachan Singh claiming to be in possession of the shop in dispute. His suit was dismissed on September 16, 1985. It was held that in fact the petitioner was in possession of the shop. Subsequently, Hardwari Lal, respondent No. 4, filed a similar suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 5. In this suit also the question regarding possession of the shop in dispute is involved. This suit is still pending. At the instance of respondent No. 3 Inderjit Singh the proceedings have been initiated under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the same shop in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2.
The initiation of the parallel criminal proceedings is not permitted in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 278 : 1985(1) C.L.R. 521 . In similar circumstances, the criminal proceedings under Section 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, were quashed by me in Crl. Misc. No. 3601M of 1986 (Gram Panchayat, Garh Sarnai v. S.D.M. Panipat and others), 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 588 (P&H) : on October 9, 1986. The present case is fully covered by my earlier judgment.
Thus, the proceedings under Section 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, initiated in this case in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2, are hereby quashed.
Proceedings quashed.