K.S.KUMARAN, J. - (1.) THE respondent-Sardara Singh in this revision petition lodged a complaint under Sections 120-B, 448 read with Section 109 I.P.C. against (1) Jaswant Singh (2) Walaiti Ram, (3) Gurnam Singh, and (4) Davinder Singh, alleging that the complainant took on lease a plot belonging to Rajindra Deva Orphanage, Patiala, through Iqbal Singh, the previous honorary Secretary of the said Orphanage. He has also alleged that he had taken another plot contiguous to the above said plot. The further allegation is that the accused had filed a civil suit against the complainant for ejectment from the premises in dispute and there was a compromise also. But the material allegation is that the first accrued-Jaswant singh during the continuance of the period of tenancy in favour of the complainant and while he was in possession of the premises legally, had let out front portion of the premises to the accused Nos. 2 to 4 (mistake for accused No. 2 and 3 only) and thereby they have committed trespass. The petitioners herein filed two applications before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. By the first application the petitioners and others sought the dropping of the proceedings and by the second application, they sought the stay of proceedings. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, considered both the applications and passed a common order dated 28.9.1993. In so far as the request for dropping the proceedings are concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that of the civil suits, one was a civil suit for recovery of damages for Rs. 50,000/- referred to above by the petitioners herein while the other suit was for mandatory injunction and thus civil suits have no connection with the complaint wherein the accused are alleged to have trespassed into the property in the possession of the complainant. Therefore, by observing that it was not proper at this stage, to go into the evidence, he dismissed that application for dropping the proceedings. So far as the second application by which the present petitioners had made an alternative prayer for stay of the proceedings is concerned, the learned Magistrate held that there was no ground for staying the criminal proceedings inasmuch as all the accused are not even involved in the civil proceedings. Therefore, he has dismissed the second application also. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this revision petition.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. The complaint has been filed under Sections 120, 448 read with Section 109 I.P.C. on the ground that at the instance of the accused, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have trespassed into the property, which is in possession of the complainant. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant has filed civil suit No. 394 of 15.4.1990 against Rajindra Deva Orphanage and Jaswant Singh Manager of the said Orphanage for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for making Jaswant Singh, Walaiti Ram, Gurnam Singh and Davinder Singh direct tenants of the Orphanage illegally and unauthorisedly and thereby depriving the complainant from enjoying the property leased out. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that the subject-matter involved in both the civil suit and the criminal complaint involves a dispute of a civil nature. He contends that it is not the case of the complainant that the accused trespassed into the property and that they had no concern with the property at all. According to him, the persons, who have been let in possession, were sub-tenants and simply they have attorned to the owner of the property and that the accused could not be stated to have committed criminal trespass and, therefore, this complaint involves a question which is a purely of a civil nature. But, in my view it cannot, at this stage, be stated that no criminal trespass is involved. Even according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the accused have only been summoned to face trial and the pre-charge evidence is on. Therefore, to give a finding either way, would adversely affect either one party or the other. Therefore, without meaning to express any opinion as to whether there was a criminal trespass or not, I am of the view that merely because a civil suit for damages/compensation is pending, it is not necessary to stay the further proceedings in the criminal complaint. This is especially so, when all the accused are not parties to the suit filed by the complainant for these recovery of Rs. 50,000/- in (Civil Suit No. 304 of 1990). Therefore, for the reasons, it cannot now be stated that the proceedings should be dropped.
(3.) THEREFORE , while dismissing this petition, I direct that the Civil Suit No. 394 of 15.4.1990 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala, as well as complaint Sardara Singh v. Jaswant Singh and others under Sections 120-B, 448 read with Section 109 I.P.C. pending before the CHief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, should be tried by the same Judicial Officer separately but simultaneously. Therefore, I direct the concerned Sessions Judge, Patiala, to entrust both the criminal complaint as well as the civil suit mentioned above to some Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction, who will try hear the complaint as well as the civil suit separately but simultaneously and dispose of them at the same time by separate order/judgment.;