- (1.) BY way of this petition under Sec tion 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has chal lenged the judgment and order dated 09-10-1998 passed by Sub Divisional Mag istrate in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1996, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. as well as judgment and order dated 29-;05-2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 1998.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was initiated by the S. D. M. , Uttarkashi and after hearing both the parties and after having perused the entire material available before him, learned S. D. M. , Uttarkashi vide order dated 09-10-1998 came to the conclu sion that second party Mor Singh and others are not in possession over the land in question. The aforesaid order of the S. D. M. was challenged by the peti tioner in the revision and learned Ses sions Judge dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 29-05-2003. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred this petition before this Court. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Bisaria holding brief of Sri H. M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respond ent No. 3 and perused the record. It is not disputed between the parties that the Civil Suit No. 11 of 1996, Jaipal Singh and others Vs. Kamal Singh was filed before the court of com petent jurisdiction and in that case on 15-03-1996, the temporary injunction was also granted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the civil litigation was pending between the parties, the proceedings of Section 145 Cr. P. C. would not be initiated. Learned counsel for the respond ent has made a rival contention by sub mitting that the civil suit which was filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 was ulti mately dismissed. He has further con tended that the petitioner has also filed a suit before the revenue court under Section 229 (B) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act that has also been dismissed and now the restoration application is pending.;