- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. This revision has been filed by Shiv Kumar Dube against the order of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 30. 7. 90 thereby allowing the revision of the opposite party No. 1 Raj Narain Dube and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in accordance with law.
(2.) IT appears that on the basis of a police report proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated in the Court of City Magistrate, Varansi. An objection was taken that since the matter relating to those very plots was covered under the provisions of Con solidation of Holdings Act as a revision of an order of the S. O. C. was pending before the D. D. C. , proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were not maintainable. The Magistrate allowed this objection and held that in view of the authority laid down in Ram Sumer's case, 1985 A Cr. R. 108. IT was not desirable to go not with the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. As stated above, this view did not prevail with the Sessions Judge, hence this revision. Sri S. D. Pthak, learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon Ram Sumer's case and said that the present case should not continue any more because of the pendency of the title question before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sri A. R. Dube, learned Counsel for the opposite party, however, has objection and said that since on injunction or the like order can be passed by the consolidation Courts, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. must go on to its logical conclusion. A perusal of the provisions contained in the Consolidation of Holdings Act indicates that the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act are applicable therein. However, the fact remains that the proposal initially made for allotment of chak can and may be varied till the last stage and a tenure-holder in possession of a particular area at the beginning of the consolidation proceedings may ultimately have quite a different chak than originally held by him. This is one of the important factors which must be looked into by the Magistrate while trying to maintain law and order because of imminent danger of breach of peace reported to them by the local police.
(3.) THIS Court has held in the case reported in Ramji Bind v. State of U. P. , 1990 Vol. 1 (AWC) 194, that dropping of a proceeding by Magistrate on the strength of Ram Sumer's case may be ordered only when the following three findings are recorded by him; Firstly, whethere the subject-matter in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. . is the same which is the property in dispute before the Civil Court, secondly, whether the proceedings before Magistrate's Court will amount to parallel proceedings in view of dictum of the Supreme Court and thirdly, whether the concerned party can or should approach civil Court for appropriate remedy for avoiding parallel proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. In view of the aforesaid decision all the three points must be considered by the Magistrate and not that he should pick up only one of the three points and decide the case against one party or the other. In view of the aforesaid discussion this revision is finally disposed of in terms stated above. Interim order dated 22. 2. 91 is vacated. .;