- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying the entire proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in case No. 55 of 1986, Raj Mani and another v. Satya Narian Mishra, pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Mirzapur be quashed.
(2.) THE brief facts, as will appear from the record, are that the opposite parties 2 and 3 had on 23-1-1986 filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract for sale against the present petitioner and one Ram Khilwan since deceased. It was in that suit asserted by the plaintiffs that Ram Khilawan, defendant No. 1, was owner of the land in question and entered into an agreement for sale in favour of plaintiffs on 15- 12-1975. Out of the sale amount of Rs. 40,000 the plaintiffs claimed to have paid Rs. 30,000 as advance. It was asserted that the owner had handed over the possession of the land in dispute on that date. THE plaintiffs also impleaded the present petitioner alleging that he claims to have become the owner of the land under a gift deed allegedly executed by Ram Khilawan. THE plaintiffs prayed for a decree of specific performance of contract and also prayed that if the court found that they were not in possession, the possession of the land in dispute be also delivered to them. The defendant filed written statement denying the claim made by the plaintiffs. He also denied that the plaintiffs were in possession over the land in question. It appears that after the suit was filed, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated by the S. D. M. , Mirzapur who passed a preli minary order under Section 145 (1 ). Cr. P. C. on 29-9-1986. The proceedings remained pending and ultimately on 30-7-1990, after about four years, an order under Section 146, Cr. P. C. was passed attaching the property. It is not disputed that the land in dispute in the civil suit, as well as the land in respect of which the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. have been initiated, is the same. The assertion made on behalf of the petitioner in this case is that as the civil litigation was already pending between the parties in which the question of possession is also to be examined by that court, there was no justi fication for initiating and continuing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the same property.
(3.) PARTIES have exchanged affidavits in this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has principally placed reliance on the decision in the case Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U. P. , 1985 (22) ACC 45 (SC ). He has also relied on the observation made by this Court in the case Ramji Bind and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1990 AWC 194: 1990 JIC 39 (All ). Apart from the above, reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case Ranjit Singh and others v. Motilal Matiyar and others, 1988 (25) AWC 26. Learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 who, however, argued that there was no decision by the Civil Court in the trial nor any injunction order has been passed nor appointment of receiver has been made by that court and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are not liable to be dropped.;