Narayan Bajoria and Others vs Fagu Swain

Panigrahi, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. This is a fit case which, in my opinion, ought to be allowed. There has been some dispute among the co-sharer-landlords of some lands which are the subject-matter of proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P. C. Pagu Swain is alleged to be the tenant of some of the cosharers and claims to have raised the crop which was removed by the other cosharers, A criminal case u/s 379 I. P. C. started at the instance of Pagu Swain is now pending against the rival landlords and their servants. The trying magistrate was moved for adjourning the case till the disposal of the proceedings u/s 145, Cr. P. C. That prayer having been rejected the petitioners have now come up to this court and renewed their prayer for staying the proceedings in the theft case until the disposal of the Section 145 proceedings. The dispute is essentially one between rival landlords relating to possession of the land, from which the crop appears to have been removed.

The question whether the removal would amount to theft would depend upon who was in actual possession of the lands at the time of the alleged removal. In these circumstances it is not fair that the parties should be harassed in respect of the same dispute in two separate proceedings.

I would, therefore, direct that the proceedings in the case u/s 379 I. P. C. should be stayed till the disposal of the miscellaneous case u/s 145, Cr. P. C. The revision is accordingly allowed.