N.G. Chaudhuri, J. - (1.) Dr. Parimal Das has come up in Revision under section 397, 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 19.5.84 of the Executive Magistrate, Sealdah in case,. No. M. P. 579 of 1934 whereby at the instance of opposite party No. 1 proceedings under section 145(1) of the Cr. P. C. have been drawn up in respect of some rooms' of the ground floor in premises No. 34 Delhi Serampare Road, Calcutta.
(2.) The antecedent fads are as follows: The revision petitioner held a monthly tenancy in respect of the rooms in dispute under the opposite party No. 1 and his co-sharers. The revision petitioner used the rooms in question mainly for the purpose of running his chamber for examining patients and used it on specified days of the week during specified hours, otherwise the rooms used to be kept locked. The landlords filed a suit for eviction against the revision petitioner namely, Title Suit No. 311 of 1983 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Sendah and obtained an ex parte decree therein on 15.11.83. The said decree was put to execution in Title Execution Case No. 94 of 1983 and the decree holder landlords got possession of the rooms in question on 23.3.84 with the help of the Nazir of the Court by breaking open of in locks fastened to the door of the room. Various movables including telephone receiver, operation table etc were lying in the room of which the Nazir of the. Court made an inventory and left them in the custody of the decree holders after giving them delivery of possession Immediately thereafter revision petitioner appeared with a number of people. He broke open the locks the landlord had put on the doors and entered into possession of the rooms. Simultaneous; the revision petitioner filed a petition.under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code giving rise to Misc. Case No. 23 of 1984 for setting aside the ex-parted. decree The revision petitioner filed in the said Misc. Case a petition for an injunction under Section 151 C. P. Code for restraining the decree holder opposite party from interfering with his possession in respect of the rooms. While issuing notice of the petition for injunction on the landlords the learned Munsif by an interim order directed maintenance of status by the parties in respect of the rooms. The learned Munsif. however, did not ascertain from the records or the Officers of the court if the decree was already executed or if the landlords were given delivery of possession of the rooms in question. The said Misc. Case I am told is still pending. Against the ad interim order aforesaid passed by the learned Munsif the landlords filed an Appeal namely, Mise. Appeal No. 265 of 1984. The appeal on being transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore has been heard and dismissed on contest on 8.9.84. The opposite party No. 1 one of the landlords filed J an application under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. in the court of Executive Magistrate, Sealdah alleging dispute in respect of the possession of rooms in question even the possibility of the breach of peace in the locality in connection with the said dispute and prayed for enquiry and report by Police and drawing up of proceedings under the section. After obtaining Police Report and hearing both the parties the learned Executive Magistrate by his order impugned drew up proceedings under section 145(1) Cr. P. C directing the revision petitioner to put in written statement of his claim in respect of the fact of actual possession by 2.6.84. The Title Execution Case at the instance of the landlord opposite parties namely Title Execution Case No. 94 of 1983. has however, been dismissed on full satisfaction by order dated 30.3.84 with the note that "the possession has been delivered to the decree holders as per Nazir's report".
(3.) Mr. Srivastava the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that on account of the pendency of the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 23 of 1934 under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code there is however a likelihood of exparte decree being set aside. He contends that admittedly the revision petitioner is in possession of the disputed room at present. In the above background he argues that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. initiated by the opposite party are no doubt parallel proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code which are always subject to the final decision of the civil court as to right to possession of any of the parties to the proceeding in the disputed rooms In that view of the matter relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramsuner Puri Mohan v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1985 SC 472, Mr. Srivastava contends that the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. are liable to be quashed and that would save the parties from multiplicity of proceedings before different forum. The decisions cited lays down that when a civil litigation is pending for the property in question wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code would not be justified. In the present case the question of possession of the suit property subsequent to filing of the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code of the revision petitioner has not yet been adjudicated. The position prior to the filing of the said petition was that the opposite party got possession of the rooms in question in execution of the decree. So the decisions cited does not appear to have any applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We cannot overlook the fact that proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. are intended to prevent wrongful dispossession of a party in possession of a property. In the presort case the revision petitioner inspite of the order impugned and an anticipated final order under section 145(4) will not be prejudiced in any way if he succeeds in getting the exparte decree for eviction set aside in the Misc. Case No. 23 of 1984 under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. Code, because in that event he may get back possession of the disputed room by making on application in the civil court under section 144 C. P. C. But if the proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. drawn up at the instance of the landlord opposite party are quashed and the revision petitioner fails in the Misc. Case earlier referred to the landlords would not be able to take resort to fresh proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. because the time contemplated in the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. from the time of their dispossession will have expired. Further full satisfaction of the expat to decree having been noted in the Title Execution case they will be prevented from filing a Execution case afresh and getting possession of the disputed room in execution of the said decree. In the aforesaid premises I am of opinion that there is no cogent reason for quashing the proceedings under section 145(1) Cr. P. C. drawn up at the instance of the opposite party or in other words there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. In the result the revision application is dismissed on contest. The Rule issued earlier is discharged. The order of adinterim stay of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate is recalled and vacated. Records to be sent down.;