Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 490 (PAT)

Mohammad Alam v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-09

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This application under sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barsoi, Katihar in Case no. 91M of 2004 thereby and thereunder the proceeding initiated under sec. 145 of the C.P.C. in between the parties has been dropped under sec. 145(5) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The admitted fact is that a proceed ing under sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner on 1.4.2004. Before the filing of the petition for initiation of proceeding u/s 145 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner had already filed a title suit on 27.2.2004 over the same piece of land before the court of Sub-Judge-I at Katihar bearing Title Suit no. 20 of 2004. 4. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the aforesaid title suit the petitioner has prayed for declaration of his title over the land in question. There is no prayer for recovery of possession. Therefore, a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable in the eye of law. Whereas the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon two decisions of this Hon ble High Court reported in 2006 V©l-2 PLJR 181 Gyanendra Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as well as 2006 Vol-3 PLJR page 334 Rajeshwar Pd. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and it is submitted that even if the title suit is only for declaration of title no parallel proceeding under sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. be allowed to proceed. 5. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties as well as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. In above decision reported in Vol 2 of PLJR reliance has been placed upon a decision of Apex Court. In para 7 it has been held as follows:- Therefore, even if this suit between the parties is only for declaration of title in respect of the same property no parallel proceeding under sec. 145 of the Cr.P.C. be initiated or allowed to proceed. 6 Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law applicable thereto it is quite clear that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 145 of the Cr.P.C. be initiated or allowed to proceed. 6 Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law applicable thereto it is quite clear that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The lower court has rightly dropped the proceeding. Accordingly, this application stands rejected.