Chet Ram vs Sohan Lal

G. S. Chahal, J.

Chet Ram who is second party before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehahad has come up in criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 25.5.1990, Annexure P1 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate whereby he initiated proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. and the orders dated 13990 Annexure P2 and 10691, Annexure P4, vide which attachment of the property and registration of Criminal case were passed.

The brief facts, leading to the litigation between the parties may be stated.

Sohan Lal respondent entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner, his land, measuring 24 Kanals, detailed in paragraph of this petition. He received earnest money. However, he resiled from this agreement and the petitioner brought a suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of the Subordinate Judge I Class, Fatehahad. The respondent also filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained exparte injunction which was later on confirmed on 19491. Appeal against that order was dismissed by the Addl. District'' Judge and civil revision is pending in this Court The respondent moved an application dated 24590 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for'' initiating proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. On the basis of this application, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated.

The petitioner challenges the proceedings on the basis that Civil Court was already sized of the matter and temporary injunction had already been issued and the Sub Divisional Magistrate. should not have initiated proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. and thereafter on another application of the respondent, proceeded to attach the property. All the remedies for appointment of receiver and attachment of the property were available in the civil suit. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP & ors., 1985 (1) Recent CR 278 their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with a similar proposition, held as under :

"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 proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 25 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that the parallel, proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of decree of Civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed .

In Gurmail Singh & ors. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, 1990 (2) CLR 539, A.P. Chowdhri, J., held that where the dispute regarding possession is already pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and no untoward incident between the parties is reported since after the passing of the order of the Civil Court, attachment of the property in dispute and appointment of a receiver is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.

In view of the pronouncement by the apex Court in Rom Sumer Puri Mahant''s case (supra), the observations made in Mohinder Singh v. Shri Dilbagh Rai, 1976 PLR 803 cannot be held to be good law. It may, however, be noted that in the DB authority, M.R. Sharma, J., in his separate note had observed that jurisdiction under section 145. Cr.P.C. should be exercised with extreme caution, if a Civil Court is properly seized of the case.

I accept the argument of the learned counsel that since it has not been shown that after the passing of the interim orders of the Civil Court and before the taking of the action under section 145 Cr.P.C. no untoward incident having taken place and the Police not having taken any step under the provisions of sections 107/151, Cr.P.C., there was no justification for the criminal Court to have entertained the proceedings under section 145. Cr.P.C.

In view of the above discussion, this criminal miscellaneous is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed.