Decided on November 18,1986

PARAS RAM Appellant
SITAN Respondents


R.P.SETHI, J. - (1.) CLAIMING to be owner in possession of the property described in the petition to the extent of 1/2 share, the respondents herein filed an application under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Jammu. It was alleged that they were predecessors in interest of Saran and after his death were continuously in possession to the extent stated hereinabove. The petitioner herein has no right to interfere with their possession. It was alleged that the petitioner herein wanted to forcibly dispossess them which had created a situation. warranting action under section 145 Cr.P.C. The Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 3rd Oct., 1985 passed a preliminary order and directed the attachment of the property, the subject matter of the dispute.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Executive Magistrate, the petitioner and one Sarsa Ram filed a revision petition before the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu who vide his order dated 1. 12.1985 dismissed the same and upheld the order of the trial Magistrate. The revisional court below was influenced by the judgment of this court in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1971 decided by. Hon'ble Justice Mufti Bahaudin-Farooqi on 25th November, 197J and report in 1972 JKLR 268. It was held in that judgment that the jurisdiction of a Magistrate is not ousted simply because the suit about the same immovable property is pending in the civil court. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, ignored a subsequent judgment of the court delivered in criminal application No. 97 of 1985 decided on 31st May, 1986 reported in 1986 KLJ 449 which was based upon a Supreme Court Judgment reported as AIR 1986 SC 472. it was held by this court in the latter judgment that proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. were unwarranted and liable to be quashed when civil litigation with regard to the same subject is already pending and civil court has passed interim orders with regard to possession of the property in dispute. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
(3.) IN the instant case it is not disputed that civil disputes with respect to the property, the subject matter of the proceedings under section 145 Cr,. P. C. are going on in which interim orders have also been passed in favour of the respondent. Respondent has filed a suit for declaration alongwith consequential relief of injunction which is pending. She has also filed a suit for permanent injunction in which temporary injunction was issued in her favour. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties, proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. were uncalled for and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has however submitted that the pendency of the civil disputes is not a bar to the proceedings under section 145 Cri P. C.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.