- (1.) BY way of this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the peti tioner has sought the relief to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30-7-2007 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition), passed by City Magistrate, Dehradun under Sec tion 146 (1) Cr. P. C. as well as the order dated 29-5-2008 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition), passed by 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal -Revision No. 107 of 2007, Rameshwar Havelia Vs. State of Uttarakhand and an other.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he purchased the property bearing No. 183-1/1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun vide registered sale deed dated 30-1 -2003 from respondent No. 1 for Rs. 55 Lakhs. The entire payment wis made through cheque, which was duly encashed by the respondent No. 1 and since then the pe titioner is owner in possession of the said property. The name of the petitioner has also been mutated in the Municipal records and all the taxes pertaining to the aforesaid property ever since the date of purchase are being paid by the petitioner. The further allegation of the petitioner is that after the purchase of the aforesaid property, one Sri Jagdish Prasad had been permitted to reside in a portion of the aforesaid property, who expired on 22-7-2007 without leaving any heir. One Pradeep Sharma, ex- em ployee of Jagdish Prasad was also stay ing with Jagdish Prasad as his guest at the time of his death. After the death of Jagdish Prasad, Pradeep Sharma was requested to leave the aforesaid prop erty, but he started claiming the right of residence and also started to encroach upon the aforesaid property and creat ing disturbance in the peaceful posses sion of the petitioner over the aforesaid property and ultimately he left the afore said property on 25-7-2007. The peti tioner also alleged in the petition that Pradeep Sharma, who is the permanent resident of Australia conspired with the police and some land mafias and started claiming his right over the afore said property. Therefore on 30-7-2007 the petitioner was compelled to file a civil suit for injunction (Suit No. 319 of 2007) before the Civil Judge (S. D.) Dehradun alongwith interim injunction application and on the same day learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioner, restraining the defendant Pradeep Sharma from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in question. On 6-8-2007 Pradeep Sharma put his appear ance in the aforesaid suit of injunction and filed an application stating therein that in case the suit is decreed, he has no objection. Pradeep Sharma also moved an application before the City Magistrate, Dehradun for initiation of proceedings U/s 145 Cr. PC. The petition further reveals that, the City Magistrate passed an order on 30-7-2007 U/s 145 (1)'cr. P. C. and U/s 146 (1) Cr. P. C. and illegally attached the property, as the injunction order has already been passed on 30-7-2007. Thereafter Pradeep Sharma also appeared before the City Magistrate in the proceeding U/s 145 Cr. P. C. and moved an application on 6-8-2007 stating therein that he has no con cern with the property in question, as he has already left the same and now there is no dispute between Rameshwar Havelia- petitioner and Pradeep Sharma with regard to the property in question, as such the proceeding U/s 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P. C. be dropped. Subsequently the petitioner also filed an application before the City Magistrate for dropping the proceedings, but the learned City Magis trate instead of dropping the proceedings, exceeded his jurisdiction by unnecessarily keeping the property under attachment and also tried to usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court. Against the order dated 30-7-2007 passed by the City Magistrate, the peti tioner preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Judge, Dehradun (Crl. Rev. No. 107 of 2007 ). During the pendency of the criminal revision, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and the said suit was registered, which is still pending before the Civil Judge (S. D.), Dehradun.
(3.) THE petitioner's further case is that the respondent No. 1 moved various ap plications dated 18-9- 2007,11-12-2007,11-01-2008 and 5-2-2008 before the Court of 2nd Additional District and Ses sions Judge, Dehradun and also sought adjournments. Hence on account of the same the aforesaid criminal revision could not be decided. THE petitioner approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. W. P No. 292 of 2008 (M/s) seeking relief for expeditious disposal of the revision and the same was decided vide order dated 21-2-2008, whereby the High Court di rected the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months. THEreafter the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun dismissed the revision on the ground that the order impugned therein is interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. The petitioner has preferred the present petition on the ground that the City Magistrate has ho jurisdiction U/s 145 (1) arid" 146 (1) Cr. P. C. to pass the order, as the matter is already seized with the civil court, where the right of parties is to be finally adjudicated and the order dated 30-7-2007 (Annexure No. 1) passed by City Magistrate, Dehradun U/s 146 (1) Cr. P. C. as well as the order dated 29-5-2008 (Annexure No. 2) passed by 2nd Ad ditional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Cri. Revision No. 107/2007, are liable to be quashed.;