- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on 16. 4. 2008 and reserved judgment. I had also granted time to the parties to file their written arguments within a week.
(2.) THE respondents have filed their written arguments but the applicant has neither filed any counter affidavit nor written arguments. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant first party for challenging an order dated 31. 7. 2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/spl. Judge, EC Act, Meerut, allowing the Crl. Revision No. 228 of 2004 filed by opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 setting aside the order dated 16. 4. 2004 passed by the SDM Meerut initiating proceedings under sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. in Case No. 19 of 2004 (Askari Ahmad @ Manzoor Ahmad Vs. Akbar Ali and others ). The orders dated 16. 4. 2004 under sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. had been passed by the SDM, Meerut, on the ground that he was satisfied by the report dated 26. 2. 2004 of the S. H. O, P. S. Bhawanpur, and the report of the Naib-Tehsildar I, Bhawanpur, dated 16. 4. 2004 that there was an imminent dispute between the parties relating to plot nos. 839, 898, 901, 902, 968 falling within his jurisdiction in village Abdullapur, over the possession of the aforesaid property hence he was passing the preliminary order and an order attaching the properties and handing over the same to a supurdagar who was to get the standing crops cut and the proceeds therefrom deposited in the treasury.
(3.) THE applicant's case was that he was a resident of village Abdullapur and was in possession of the aforesaid plots which was a waqf property and was registered with the Shia Central Wakf Board, Lucknow. THE applicant also claimed to be the mutwalli of the same wakf and the property was said to have been recorded as the property of the waqf in the revenue records and that the opposite party had no claim or concern with the land in dispute and wanted to grab the waqf property. The revisional court had, however, entertained the revision and observed that prior to the initiation of the 145 Cr. P. C. proceedings by the Magistrate on 16. 4. 2004 a Revision No. 183 of 2003 was pending before the Wakf Tribunal (Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Meerut) wherein it was being contended by the opposite parties that the property had wrongly been registered in the name of the waqf. The revisional court further observed that in the revenue records, opposite party no. 2 is shown as the owner of the said land. Thus, prima facie he could also be considered to be in possession. He was setting aside the impugned orders dated 16. 4. 04 under sections 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. on that ground that as observed by the Apex Court in various decisions it was not proper to allow parallel proceedings both under section 145 and 146 Cr. P. C and civil litigation to proceed with respect to the same property. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of Ram Sumer Puri (Mahant) Vs. State of UP and others: 1985 (1) SCC 427 in this connection.;