CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rameshwar Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 16 October 1986 · Citation: (1987) RLW 746 : (1987) 2 WLN 711

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.M. Lodha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 145, 482
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 296 of 1986
Ask AI about this case

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

6 paragraphs · 384 words

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr. PC on the ground that since in a civil court case is pending and injunction order has been granted, the criminal court should not entertain a case u/s 145 Cr. PC.

2.

Prima facie the submission is attractive and plausible and deserves consideration. I have therefore, examined the case thoroughly and asked the learned Counsel to read the order of injunction passed by the civil court. This order of injunction of the civil court, part and portion of which has been reproduced and extracted by the criminal court expressly mentioned that it is not possible to say that which party is in possession. The learned Magistrate on this ground held that since the civil court has not been able to prima facie decide which party was in possession and further since the civil court has directed the maintenance of status quo only, therefore there is every chance of blood shed between the parties.

3.

I am in agreement with this finding of the Magistrate and I do not find that on the basis of such a finding if Section 145 proceedings are being continued there is any abuse of process of the court.

4.

This court can interfere u/s 482 Cr. PC only when there is abuse of process of court or it becomes necessary to interfere, in any way to enforce any other provisions of the code or it is expedient in the interest of justice to interfere. In my considered mature and thoughtful opinion I feel that when there is chance of blood shed & when the civil court expressly stated that it is not possible to decide even prima facie which party is in possession and the civil court has directed the parties to maintain status quo, it only means that there would be trial of muscle strength between the parties. The trial of muscle strength between the parties. The trial of muscle strength would mean blood shed. It is the duty of the every court to stop and restrain and take preventive action in such matters.

5.

That being so in the extra ordinary peculiar feature of this case, I feel that I must not interfere by invoking Section 482 Cr. PC.

6.

Consequently the petition is dismissed.