9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the High Court's decision to set aside an Order by the sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, involving a property dispute and the pendency of a civil suit. Property Dispute and Civil Suit: - The 1st Respondent filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, and injunction against Sharda Prasad and Shiv Kumar. - An interim order for maintaining status quo was passed by the civil court. - The Appellant claimed possession was delivered to Smt. Prem Kali, impleaded as a party defendant in the civil suit. - The S.D.M. initiated proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code based on a police report regarding a possession dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. - The Appellant requested dropping the Section 145 proceedings due to the pending civil suit, which was initially rejected. - The 1st Respondent admitted in a statement that the civil suit and Section 145 proceedings concerned the same property. - The S.D.M. eventually dropped the Section 145 proceedings, leading to a challenge by the 1st Respondent in the High Court. High Court Decision and Appeal: - The High Court set aside the S.D.M.'s order based on the finality of previous interim orders and directed the resumption of Section 145 proceedings. - The Supreme Court found the High Court erred in considering interim orders as final and binding, emphasizing that they do not prevent contrary final orders based on evidence. - The Court cited the principle that parallel criminal proceedings should not continue when a civil court is adjudicating on possession, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. - The Court distinguished a case where a civil suit was filed after Section 145 proceedings had concluded, emphasizing that in this case, the civil suit was filed first and an order of status quo was in place. - The appeal was allowed, the S.D.M.'s decision to discontinue Section 145 proceedings was upheld, and the High Court's order was set aside. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the S.D.M.'s decision to discontinue the Section 145 proceedings. The Court criticized the High Court's strictures against the S.D.M., emphasizing the need to avoid passing such remarks when differing views exist between courts.
|
