- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. By this writ petition the petitioners claim a writ of certiorari quashing the orders, dated 19-4-1994 and 9-5-1994 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 1 viz. S. D. M. Saharanpur and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur respectively, in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The dispute between the parties relates to standing crop over Khasra plot No. 138 in village Alarnpur, Tehsil Behat, Saharanpur, vide order, dated 19-4-1994 passed under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. the S. D. M. was satisfied on the basis of the report of P. S- Mirzapur that an apprehension of breach of peace existed over the standing crop on plot No. Ili8 in village Alampur, Tahsil Behat, Saharanpur and directed the parties to appear before him and file written statement of their respective claim of possession over the crop in question. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No, 243 of 1994 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed as being against an interlocutory order and not maintainable in view of Section 397 (2) of the Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by it they have now come to this court in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. Two points have been urged in this writ petition. The first is that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the order in question cannot be said to be an interlocutory order and secondly that the civil proceedings are pending between the parties with respect to the subject matter of dispute and as such the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were incompetent. I will take the second point first. From the allegations made in the writ petition it would appear that the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 23 of 1991 Rao Javed Anwar v. Abdul Hamid, before Munsif, Hawaii, Saharanpur for injunction. The application moved for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court. The first appellate' court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and set aside the order of the Munsif, Hawaii, Saharanpur and directed for the issue of a temporary injunction. Respondent No. 3 namely, Rao Hamid Ali Khan, filed writ petition before this Court. The operation of the order passed by the appellate Judge on 6-5-1992 was stayed by this Court. It is, therefore, clear that although the Civil suit is pending between the parties but no effective order has been passed in that case in so far as the question of possession is concerned. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 472, ft was held that "when a civil suit is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceed ing under Section 145 of the Code would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of civil court the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its juris diction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders such an injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of property during the pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the inte rest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over mean ingless litigation. " In the instant case nothing has been decided by the Civil Court. Not even an interim effective order has been passed by it. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. primarily relate to the maintenance of law and order. Since no effective order has been passed by the Civil Court, the S. D. M. would have jurisdiction to proceed in proceed ings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. These are summary proceedings and are subject to the result of the judgment order passed by the Civil Court. As regards the first point placing reliance over Shashikant v. The XII A. D, J. Meerut, 1994 ACC 656 ; 1994 JIC 744 (All), it was argued that whether the order is interlocutory or not would depend upon the facts and circumst ances of the case. In the case the Magistrate passed the order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. The revisions filed against the aforesaid orders were set aside and the proceedings under Section 145, C. P. C. were quashed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. Aggrieved by it the revisionist came to this Court wherein it was held that since the civil suit is pending between the parties for partition there was no justification for initiating proceedings under Section 145,, Cr. P. C. nor so when the application, filed under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was rejected on 20-1-1994 but a different order on 15-4-1991 was passed with regard to the same property. In these circumstances it was held that the order in question is not an interlocutory order. It is, however, not the case here.
(3.) SINCE there is nothing on the record to indicate that there is no (apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and no effective order is in existence in the civil suit pending between the parties, the order in question must be held to be an interlocutory order as has been held in Indra Deo Pandey v. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1981 All LJ 687 ; Jai Prakash v. Radhey Shyam Singh, 1987 All LJ 687 and Shamsher Singh v. State of U. P. , 1986 Crlj NOG 36. In view of the discussion made above it is clear that the pendency of civil suit between the parties was net an impediment to the initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as no effective order regarding possession passed by the Civil Court is in existence.;