S.K.Verma - (1.) THROUGH this revision the revisionist seeks the quashing of the complaint dated 16.6.1993 under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and also quashing of the entire proceedings and impugned orders passed in case Nos.9/13/94 Mubarak All v. All Mohd., pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tundla, district Firozabad.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties have been heard and after detailed arguments and appreciation of the evidence on record it has been found that the opposite party No. 2 initiated the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. claiming that on the basis of a family arrangement and certain transfer he was in exclusive possession of the disputed property and there was danger of breach of peace because of threats being issued against him. Under these circumstances the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned took action under Section 145, Cr. P.C. The plea vehemently argued before this Court that matters of joint possession cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. presumes that the dispute in regarding Joint possession. However, the record prima facie indicates that the opposite party No. 2 claims exclusive possession over the disputed property and it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider this aspect at the time of finally deciding the proceedings. Again the plea that because a civil suit is pending the Magistrate has no jurisdiction, pressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist, is not tenable because till now prima facie as no orders regarding the possession of either party over the disputed property have been passed by the civil court. It is true that even if an interim order regarding possession of either party has been passed by the civil court the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. should terminate according to the Civil Courts Orders (See R. S. P. Mahant v. State. 1985 AWC 128 and Dharampal v. Ram Sree, 1993 (1) SCC 435. But in this case till now there is no evidence that the civil court has either finally or as an interim measure decided the possession of either party regarding disputed property. Even this ground therefore fails.
(3.) IT was then argued that no opportunity was afforded to the revisionist to lead evidence. The order sheet filed as annexure12 alongwith counter affidavit indicates that opportunity was afforded to the revisionist to lead evidence but the revisionist failed to exercise that right. The magistrate levied cost and had directed on 10.1.1994 that the entire evidence of the revisionist was to be led on 17.1.1994 and in case evidence is not produced on behalf of the revisionist the evidence of the revisionist would be closed. However on 17.1.1994 instead of leading evidence the revisionist moved an application for summoning many witnesses. It is in this background that the Magistrate closed the evidence of the revisionist.;