- (1.) I. S. Mathur, J. By this revision, the revisionist prays for quashing the order dated 2-12-1994 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur against the order dated 16-9-1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gorakhpur in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.
(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsels for the parties this revision has been heard finally. It appears that a report was given to the magistrate for taking proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. On being statisfied that there was an apprehension of breach of peace, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 19-9-1994 under Sec. 146 (1) Cr. P. C and order of attachment was also passed. These orders were challenged before the revisional court mainly on the ground that a civil suit between the parties was pending and the matter regarding possession has already been adjudicated upon. It was alleged that in suit No. 1855 of 1992, an ad interim order of injunction was earlier passed but that order was ultimately modified by a detailed order dated 5-12-1992 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur. The appeal against that order was dismissed. The revisional court held that the matter in question was already before the civil court and as such, the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was not competent. He accordingly allowed the revision and quashed the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by this order passed in revision, the revisionist has come to this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, in my opinion, there is no force in this revision. It is settled law that once a matter regarding possession has been decided a suit which involved title also by the Civil Court, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. will not be competent. In Ram Sumerpuri Mahant v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 AWC128:1985 U. P. Cr. R 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: - "when a civil litigation is pending for the property where in the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for intiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction 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 has injunction or appoint ment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. "
(3.) IN Dharampal and other v. Ramashi (Smt.) and others, (1993) 1 SCC 435; 1993 U. P Cr. R. 329, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further clarified that this adjudication can be made by the civil court even by away of interlocutory order of injunction or appointment of receiver. In the present case, it is not disputed that a civil suit between the parties relating to title was pending, being suit No. 1851 of 1992 and that suit admittedly also related to possession. It is also not disputed and is clear from the record as also from the order of the learned I Additional Munsif, dated 5-12-1992, which has been placed before me, that the revisionist in this case moved an application for interim injunction against the opposite party No. 2 and ad interim injunction was passed but that order was modified by the order dated 5-12-1992 and it has been specifically directed that so far as the house is concerned, the parties will maintain the present position and the application of the revisionist in respect of the land was rejected. It is quite obvious from the orders passed in civil suit that the question relating to possession was raised before the civil court and has been adjudi cated upon.;