JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2. 2. Both these petitions, the first under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the second under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. are against the orders passed in the same proceedings i.e. the proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No. 1/97 Mulla Hasan Ali v. Secretary, Bohra Youth, Udaipur . Both the petitions are therefore, being disposed of by common order. 3. On 8th July, 97 Mulla Hasan Ali, who is non-petitioner No. 2 in both the petitions filed an application before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City) Udaipur with the prayer that the possession of Moiyatpura Mosque situated in Udaipur, the possession of which had been taken by the Receiver appointed in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. be delivered to the applicant as the proceedings started under section 145 Cr.P.C. had been quashed and set-aside by the High Court. The learned Additional District Magistrate (city) Udaipur after considering the averments made in the application, initiated the impugned proceedings and directed that the application be registered. He further directed that the Secretary of the Bohra Youth Group be summoned. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed S.B. Cri. Misc. Pet. No. 574/97 under section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that the initiation of proceedings on the application filed by Shri Mulla Hasan Ali amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 5. By the aforesaid order dated 8th July, 97, the learned Additional District Judge (city), Udaipur, fixed 16th July, 97 for appearance of the Secretary of the Bohra Youth Group. On 16th July, 97 the parties appeared before the Court and power of attorney was filed by the counsel for the Secretary, Bohra Youth Group. The hearing was adjourned to 28th July, 97 as the opposite party wanted time for filing reply. On 28th July, 97 reply was filed on behalf of the Bohra Youth Group and preliminary objections were raised against the application filed by Shri Mulla Hasan Ali. The learned Additional District Magistrate (city), Udaipur adjourned the hearing to 4th August, 97. On 4th August, 97 the hearing was again adjourned to 5th August, 97. On 5th August, 97, after hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Magistrate (city), Udaipur rejected the preliminary objections and fixed 12th August, 97 for filing of reply on facts. The learned Additional District Magistrate (city), Udaipur adjourned the hearing to 4th August, 97. On 4th August, 97 the hearing was again adjourned to 5th August, 97. On 5th August, 97, after hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Magistrate (city), Udaipur rejected the preliminary objections and fixed 12th August, 97 for filing of reply on facts. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5th August, 97, S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 338/97 has been filed by Shri Abid Adeeb. 6. For the disposal of these two petitions, it is not necessary to narrate in detail the respective cases of the parties and the disputes between them. However, it would be necessary to give a brief account of the litigation , which has taken place and that which is still pending between the parties. 7. Both the parties are Dawoodi Bohras and there is a large settlement of Dawoodi Bohras in Udaipur. A section of Dawoodi Bohras at Udaipur rebelled against the spiritual or religious authority of the Dai-ul-Mutlaq, styling themselves as Bohra Youth Association, and subsequently, they formed their own separate organisation known as Dawoodi Bohra Jammat of Udaipur. Thus, Dawoodi Bohras have two groups and there is dispute between them in respect of certain properties situated in Udaipur.7-A. Amongst the properties of the community of Dawoodi Bohras, there are four mosques- (1) Moiyatpura Masjid situated at Moiyatpura Bohrawadi, Udaipur. (2) Vajihpura Masjid situated at Vajihpura, Bohrawadi, Udaipur. (3) Rasoolpura Masjid situated at Rasoolpura (Gulabwadi), Udaipur. (4) Khanpura Masjid situated at Khanpura (Gulab Bag), Udaipur Two civil suits were filed on account of the dispute arising between the two groups. The first civil suit No. 69/82 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal was instituted for injunction. 8. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.RC. was also filed by the plaintiffs in that case. The application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the learned District Judge, Udaipur vide order dated 31.10.83. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal & Ors. was filed against the order dated 31st October, 83 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22nd May, 84. The order has been reported in R.L.R. 1984, 888. 9. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal & Ors. was filed against the order dated 31st October, 83 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22nd May, 84. The order has been reported in R.L.R. 1984, 888. 9. In the above mentioned appeal filed against the order dated 31st October, 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur, this Court while allowing the appeal, gave directions in the following words - "Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the application of the plaintiffs for the grant of temporary injunction is allowed in part in the manner that the defendants in their personal and in their representative capacity and their servants and agents are restrained from preventing the plaintiffs and the members of the Shabab Group from entering the Moiyatpura Masjid for offering or participating in the imamat/Jamaat Namaaz led by the Pesh Imam appointed or nominated by and under the authority of the Dai-ul-Mutlaq for attending or participating in any Vaiz, Majlis or other religious functions, gatherings, or ceremonies held with the permission or under the authority or under the auspicies of the Dai-ul-Mutlaq. They are further restrained from interfering or disturbing the Imamat/Jamaat Namaaz conducted in the said Masjid as stated above or from disturbing or interfering with Vaiz, Majlis or any other religious ceremonies, functions or gatherings held or conducted with the authority or permission or under the auspicies of the Dai-ul-Mutlaq. The defendants by themselves and by their servants and agents or any person claiming under or through them or the members of the restrained, from holding their separate Imamat/Jammat Namaaz or from holding Vaiz, Majlis and any other religious functions, ceremqnies or gatherings in the Moiyatpura Masjid." 10. The learned Single Judge while parting with the judgment in the appeal, observed in para No. 74 as under- "Before parting with the order, I would like to impress upon the trial court that whatever views, opinions, and findings have been recorded hereinabove, would not in any way be considered binding on the trial court, while deciding the suit on merits. The opinions, which have been expressed hereinabove are opinions, while considering the application for the grant of temporary injunction. The opinions, which have been expressed hereinabove are opinions, while considering the application for the grant of temporary injunction. Further, it would be in the interest of the parties that a direction may be given to the trial court for expediting the trial and disposal of the suit " 11. In the second civil suit No. 34/85 instituted by Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb, the prayer was made for injunction, declaration and possession in respect of all the four mosques as mentioned above. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 and Order 40 Rule 1 C.RC. was also filed by the plaintiff with the prayer that injunction prayed for be granted and a Receiver be appointed for all the four mosques. 12. It may be pointed out that before the institution of second civil suit No. 34/84 Dr. Syedna Saheb v. Iqbal , proceedings under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. were instituted in the court of Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur on 25.9.84. After passing the order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., the Additional District Magistrate (city), Udaipur attached Moiyatpura mosque under sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. by order dated 30th May, 1984 and appointed Station House Officer of the Police Station, Dhanmandi, Udaipur to be the Receiver of that mosque. In 1985 when the second civil suit No. 34/85 was instituted, Moiyatpura mosque was in the custody of the Receiver appointed by the Additional Disrict Magistrate (City), Udaipur under sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. Therefore, while dealing with the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 and Section 40(1) C.RC., the learned District Judge by his order dated 14.11.91 made separate orders for Moiyatpura, Vajihpura, Rasoolpura and Khanpura mosques. For the three mosques, namely, Vajihpura, Rasoolpura and Khanpura mosques, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was appointed as Receiver. Injunction was also issued, restraining the defendants in the manner indicated in the order. For the Moiyatpura mosque, the learned District Judge, Udaipur observed that the Moiyatpura mosque was in possession of the Receiver appointed under the orders of the learned Additional Magistrate (city), Udaipur, and therefore, there was no necessity of appointing a separate Receiver. However, the learned Additional District Judge gave the direction that in the Moiyatpura mosque neither party shall carry out any repair work without the permission of the Court.S.B. Civil Misc. However, the learned Additional District Judge gave the direction that in the Moiyatpura mosque neither party shall carry out any repair work without the permission of the Court.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351/91 and one other appeal were filed against the order dated 14th January, 91 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur, whereby he allowed the application for injunction and appointment of Receiver. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20th January, 92, which has been reported in RLW 1992(1) 515. Meanwhile, the order passed by the Additional district Magistrate (City), Udaipur, whereby he appointed a Receiver for the Moiyatpura mosque was challenged before this Court by a revision petition filed under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. By judgment dated 20th January, 92, passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351/81, the direction by the Court in respect of Moiyatpura was in the following words- "So far as other appeal No. 352/91 is concerned, the impugned order dated 14.11.91 of the learned Distt. Judge is modified to the extent that the Receiver appointed in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. (case No. 356/84) shall continue. The Receiver will be free to get the repairs done without altering the original structure of the Boiyatpura mosque. He will submit his report within four months as per the order of the learned Distt. Judge. Consequently, this appeal stands disposed of." 13. In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351/91, the order dated 14th November, 91 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur was set-aside and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order 40 Rule 1 were dismissed and the order granting interim relief in appointment of the Receiver for three disputed mosques i.e. Vajihpura, Rasoolpura and Khanpura mosques was set-aside. But, it was directed that the appellants will not change the original structure of those mosques. 14. A review petition bearing S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 28/92 H.H. Dr. Syedna Mohd. & Ors. v. Iqbal & Ors. was filed against the order dated 20th January, 92 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 351/91 and 352/91. The review petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th April, 96. 14. A review petition bearing S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 28/92 H.H. Dr. Syedna Mohd. & Ors. v. Iqbal & Ors. was filed against the order dated 20th January, 92 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 351/91 and 352/91. The review petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th April, 96. The review petition was dismissed as the learned Single Judge did not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any compelling circumstance making it necessary to review the order dated 20th January, 92. 15. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by Yaqub Ali against the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur appointing a Receiver for Moiyatpura mosque was treated as a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. The revision petition has been registered as S.B. Cri. Revision Petition No. 192/84. In the above mentioned petition, the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 146 Cr.P.C. were challenged. The petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6th September, 94. In appeal, an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. in the earlier civil suit No. 69/82 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal , the order dated 22nd May, 84 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal reported in RLR 1984, 888 was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that the civil court was seized of the matter and injunction had already been issued restraining the parties, the petition was allowed and the orders passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur under Section 145(1) and Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. were quashed and set-aside. There is no mention in the order dated 6th September, 94 of the second civil suit No. 34/85 nor there is any mention in the order passed by this Court on 20th January, 92 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 351/91 and 352/91. 16. There is no mention in the order dated 6th September, 94 of the second civil suit No. 34/85 nor there is any mention in the order passed by this Court on 20th January, 92 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 351/91 and 352/91. 16. In the order dated 6th September, 94, while quashing the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur under Section 145(1) and Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., a direction was given by the Court that the copies of the order passed by this Court be sent to Secretary, Human Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Collector, Udaipur, City Magistrate, Udaipur and Superintendent of Police, Udaipur to ensure the strict compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 22nd May, 84 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 between the parties, as that order had attained finality. 17. In view of the facts stated above, following facts are apparent from the record - (1) That two civil i.e. Civil Suit No. 69/82 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal and Civil Suit No. 34/85 Dr. Syedna Saheb v. Iqbal are pending in the court of District Judge, Udaipur in respect of the properties of Dawoodi Bohra community. (2) On the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in the civil suit No. 69/82 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal , this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 decided on 22nd May, 84 allowed the application and issued injunction and that order has become final. (3) In criminal case No. 365/84, proceedings were instituted under section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in respect of Moyitpura mosque. A Receiver was appointed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur, S.B. Cri. Rev. Petition No. 192/84 was filed by Yaqub Ali under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the orders dated 29th May, 84 and 30th May, 84 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in the above number criminal case. The revision petition was treated as a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. and by order dated 6th September, 94, the orders dated 29th May, 84 as well as the order dated 30th May, 84 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in criminal case No. 365/84 were quashed and set-aside, in view of the pendency of the civil suit no. 69/82 Gulam Abbas v. Iqbal and the injunction issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/84 decided on 22nd May, 84. (4) In second Civil Suit No. 34/85 Dr. Syedna Saheb v. Iqbal , on an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 and Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, the District Judge, Udaipur appointed the Sub Divisional Magistrate as Receiver for three mosques namely Vajihpura, Rasoolpura and Khanpura mosques and also issued injunctions. Regarding the Moiyatpura mosque, the District Judge, Udaipur did not consider it necessary to appoint any Receiver, because a Receiver had already been appointed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in criminal case No. 365/84. However, the District Judge, gave a direction that no repair work shall be done in Moiyatpura mosque without the permission of the Court. Two appeals S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351/91 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91 were filed against the order dated 14th November, 91 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur on the above mentioned application. Both the appeals were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20th January, 92. In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 351/91, the order passed by the District Judge, Udaipur granting the injunction and appointing Receiver was set-aside. In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91, the impugned order dated 14th November, 91 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur was modified to the extent that the Receiver appointed in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. (Criminal case No. 365/84) was ordered to continue. It was however directed that the Receiver will be free to get the repairs done without altering the original structure of the Moiyatpura mosque, so that no party, may face any difficulty in offering their prayer. He will submit his report within four months as per the order of the learned District Judge. 18. It was however directed that the Receiver will be free to get the repairs done without altering the original structure of the Moiyatpura mosque, so that no party, may face any difficulty in offering their prayer. He will submit his report within four months as per the order of the learned District Judge. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while disposing of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 and Order 40 Rule 1 CPC filed by the plaintiff in the second Civil Suit No. 34/85, the District Judge, Udaipur did not appoint any Receiver for the Moiyatpura mosque, because the said mosque was already in the custody of the Receiver appointed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in a proceeding instituted under section 145 Cr.P.C. in criminal case No. 365/84 and therefore, it should be inferred that by implication the District Judge appointed the same person to be the Receiver for Moiyatpura mosque, who was appointed as a Receiver for the above mentioned mosques by the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above mentioned status of the Receiver, quashing of the proceedings started under section 145 Cr.P.C. does not entitle the non-petitioner No. 2 receive back the possession of the Moiyatpura mosque from the Receiver as the Receiver is entitled to retain the possession under the order passed by the civil court. He has submitted that since the order dated 14th November, 91 passed by the District Judge, Udaipur regarding the Moiyatpura mosque was not set-aside, but was only modified to the extent mentioned above, the order passed by the learned District Judge on 14.11.91 regarding Moiyatpura mosque has merged into the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has added that in view of the above position of the Receiver, the initiation of proceedings of criminal case No. 1/97 before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City) Udaipur of the application of Mulla Hasan Ali amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, because the writ petition is not maintainable if the Receiver can be said to be keeping the Moiyatpura mosque in its custody under the orders passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91. 20. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri N.R Gupta has submitted that the application filed by Mulla Hasan Ali was maintainable before the Additional District Magistrate (City) Udaipur, firstly in view of the fact that the proceedings commenced under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. was quashed and set-aside by this Court and secondly, the application had been filed on behalf of Youth Group before the Additional District Magistrate (City) Udaipur for delivery of possession of the Moiyatpura mosque to them. In other words, the argument of Mr. Gupta is that since the application had been moved on behalf of Youth Group for obtaining possession of the Moiyatpura mosque from the Receiver on the ground that the proceeding under section 145(1) Cr.P.C. had already been quashed by the High Court, it was but natural and proper for Mulla Hasan to file an application with the same prayer. 21. I have carefully considered the rival arguments. 22. In the instant case, it must be said that after setting aside of the orders dated 29th May, 84 and 30th May, 84 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in criminal case No. 365/84 the Receiver cannot be said to have any legal authority to retain the possession of the Moiyatpura mosque under the orders issued by the Additional District Magistrate (City) Udaipur. The natural consequence of the order dated 6th September, 94 passed by this Court in setting aside the orders dated 29th May, 84 and 30th May, 84 is that the order appointing the Receiver under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is no more in existence, and therefore, the Receiver is no more legally in possession of the Moiyatpura mosque in pursuance of the order dated 30th May, 84 which has already been set-aside. The Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur, therefore, does not have any jurisdiction to decide any question relating to Moiyatpura mosque. The dispute relating to the properties of Dawoodi Bohra community is pending before the civil court and it is the civil Court alone, which has the jurisdiction to decide all the questions arising in relation to the disputed properties. 23. I am aware of the principle that no party should suffer on account of an order passed by the Court. The dispute relating to the properties of Dawoodi Bohra community is pending before the civil court and it is the civil Court alone, which has the jurisdiction to decide all the questions arising in relation to the disputed properties. 23. I am aware of the principle that no party should suffer on account of an order passed by the Court. It is on this principle that if a person has been deprived of his property under the orders of the Court and that order is subsequently quashed, set-aside or revoked, the party, who was deprived of the possession of the property must be restored possession of the property. But, this principle does not apply to those cases where the deprivation of the property in spite of quashing of the earlier order, does not become illegal, but continuous to be under the orders of the competent court. In the instant case, Moiyatpura mosque was taken possession of by the Receiver appointed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. vide order date 30th May, 1984. Later on, the District Judge, Udaipur while dealing with the application filed by the plaintiff in second civil suit No. 34/85, took notice of the above fact and did not consider it necessary to appoint a separate Receiver for the Moiyatpura mosque. However, he gave a direction to the effect that neither party shall carry out any repair work in the Moiyatpura mosque without the prior permission of the Court. The effect of that order was that the Receiver, who was initially appointed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur was further entrusted with legal authority to keep the mosque in its custody by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur and that order dated 14.11.91 was not quashed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91. This Court while disposing of the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91 directed that the Moiyatpura mosque shall continue in possession of the Receiver, who was initially appointed in proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 365/84 and it was further directed that the Receiver shall submit his report within four months as directed by the District Judge, Udaipur. The order passed by the District Judge, regarding Moiyatpura mosque merged into the order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91. The order passed by the District Judge, regarding Moiyatpura mosque merged into the order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it must be said that the Receiver is keeping the Moiyatpura mosque in its custody under the orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 352/91 and the custody of the Receiver is therefore, legal as being under the orders of this Court in appeal. Hence, the principle that when the order, by which any person is deprived of his property is quashed and set-aside, the property must be restored to his term does not apply to this case. 24. Consequently, neither party have any right to move the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur for giving the possession of the Moiyatpura mosque to them on the ground that the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. have been quashed by this Court. The applications filed by both the parties before the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur are therefore, not maintainable in law and the inquiry, which is being conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 1/97 on the application filed by Shri Mulla Hasan Ali amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the petition must be allowed and is hereby allowed and the orders dated 8th July, 97 and 5th August, 97 and subsequent proceedings in criminal case no. 1/97 pending before the Additional District Magistrate (City), Uaipur are hereby quashed. The parties should move the Civil Court by appropriate proceedings, if they have any grievance.Petition Allowed-Criminal Proceedings Quashed. *******