Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 216 (MP)

Arjunrao v. State of M. P

1992-04-07

V.S.KOKJE

body1992
JUDGMENT The applicant had initiated proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short' the Code') before the learned S.D.M Jaora in respect of the property known as 'Rangmahal'. The Magistrate made an interim order placing the property in the hands of a receiver. After a bi-party hearing the learned S. D. M. found that the applicant Arjunrao was in possession within 2 months of the making of the application and, therefore, directed that the property be handed over by the receiver to him. Aggrieved by the order the non-applicants approached the Sessions Court and contended that civil suit was pending in respect of the property between the parties, and, therefore, the S. D. M. should not have initiated the proceedings or should have terminated them on learning about the pendency of the civil proceedings. The learned Sessions Court set-aside the order and stayed further proceedings in the Court of S. D. M. till the disposal of C.O.s.No.5-N83 pending between the parties. Shri Purohit learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the rule that proceedings u/s 145 of the Code should be stayed if a civil suit is pending between the parties is not a rule of absolute application and it has to be decided in the facts of each case whether the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code should be stayed or not. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1930 SC 242, AIR 1988 SC 1973 as also a decision of this Court in 1991 MPLJ 371 . Shri Pawecha on the other hand contended that it is settled law now that when a civil suit is pending between the parties on the same subject matter, the S.D.M. cannot initiate or continue with proceedings u/s 145 of the Code. He relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 and 1977 JLJ 664. For the purpose of scope of Sec. 397, he relied on AIR 1978 SC 47 . I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The proceedings u/s 145 of the Code were instituted on 12.1.1983.Notice were ordered to be issued to the parties on 15.3.83. For the purpose of scope of Sec. 397, he relied on AIR 1978 SC 47 . I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The proceedings u/s 145 of the Code were instituted on 12.1.1983.Notice were ordered to be issued to the parties on 15.3.83. The non-applicants appeared through their counsel and disclosed to the Court that a civil suit was pending between the parties and an injunction has also been passed in that suit on 22.3.83 a copy of the order of the civil Court was also produced before the S.D.M. on 22.12.83, after hearing the parties the S.D.M. passed an order attaching the property and putting it in custody of a receiver. Prior to that on 25.10.83 the N. As. herein moved an application praying for stay of further proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil suit Unfortunately in this application and its reply on behalf of other side details about the civil suit as regards when it was filed and who are the parties to that suit, are not there. On 15.12.83 also an application was moved by the N. As. herein for cancellation of an order restraining transfer of the property. In this application also no details about the civil suit are given. However, on the record of the S.D.M. a photocopy of a certified copy of the order of the civil Court dated 29.1.83 is put. It gives out the names of the parties and the applicant and the non-applicants are clearly shown to be party in that suit. From the number of the civil suit mentioned in this application it appears that the suit was filed in the year 1982. The subject matter also appears to be the possession of Rangmahal. It is, therefore, clear that on 12.1.83 when these proceedings were initiated, a civil suit between the parties relating to the same property was pending. We have to examine this case in the light of this fact. The case of Mathuralal v. Bhawarlal ( AIR 1980 SC 242 ) was not a case where stay of proceedings was sought because of pendency of civil suit. That case, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. We have to examine this case in the light of this fact. The case of Mathuralal v. Bhawarlal ( AIR 1980 SC 242 ) was not a case where stay of proceedings was sought because of pendency of civil suit. That case, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. In 1985 SC472 its has been held that when a civil litigation is pending in respect of the property wherein the question of possession is involved initiation of parallel criminal proceedings u/s 145 of the Code is not justified. The Court has observed that multiplicity of litigation is not. in the interest of the parties nor should public time to be allowed to be wasted 'over meaningless litigation. In AIR 1988 SC 1973 it has been observed that quashing of the order passed u/s 145 (vii) of the Code merely on the ground that the unsuccessful party had filed a suit was improper. However, it has been observed in this case that in case of dispute regarding immovable property a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal Court when civil suit was pending in respect of the same subject matter. In the aforesaid circumstances when the Sessions Court has ordered stay of the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code it has not committed any illegality or impropriety. It is clear that on the date of the initiation of proceedings u/s 145 of the Code a civil suit between the parties on the same subject matter was pending. In view of this the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code had to be stayed. The revision application, therefore, fails and is dismissed as such. AIR 1985 SC 472 , 1977 JLJ 664 and AIR 1988 SC 1973 relied on. AIR 1980 SC 242 and 1991 MPLJ 371 distinguished.