9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p premises. The shop was in possession of one Asgarali son of Akbar Ali as mortgagee since October 17, 1969. On August 7, 1982, Asgarali was said to have leased out the shop to the petitioner and also delivered possession thereof. The entering of possession by the petitioner became a subject matter of dispute. Apprehending breach of peace, the police initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. before the Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain. In that proceedings, the petitioner was party No. 2 and respondent No. 2 was party No. 1. On August 13, 1982 the Magistrate made a preliminary order. The proceedings continued for about three years. On May 17, 1985, the Magistrate made the final order in the following terms: Hence I believe th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransferred the possession to appellant/Jhummamal. As it is mentioned above the First Information Report lodged by Kanhayalal on behalf of Jhummamal in which it is stated that Jhummamal obtained possession on 9.8.82, does not seem right, when only respondent has demanded possession in his petition dated 13.8.82. Hence I believe that Jhummamal obtained the possession of the disputed shop in his capacity as tenant. Respondent and his brothers put their locks later on. And as in my opinion on the date of occurrence of incident, Jhummamal was in possession of the shop, respondent/plaintiff does not have a prima facie case in his favour. ... Hence, I believe that the temporary injunction order passed by the lower court is not just and as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the disputed premises is pending before the competent civil court, where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained, the reappears to be no justification for continuing with the proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. pending before the S.D.M. Shri Tiwari learned Counsel submitted that in case the plaintiffs suit is either withdrawn or dismissed, he would be left with no remedy. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court judgment as reported in Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0108/1984 : AIR1985SC472 . Section 145 is intended to provide a special remedy for the prevention of breach of peace arising out of a dispute relating to immovable property. Its primary object is to maintain the public peace a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t refused to interfere with that order. But this Court quashed the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. observing: There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
