AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. K. Trivedi, J.—Heard the learned Counsel of parties on this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the court of Up Zila Magistrate Bikapur, District Faizabad.
There is no dispute that Second Appeal No. 110 of 1988 relating to the property in dispute is pending in this Court and interim stay order was passed on llth April, 1988 directing the opposite parties 3 and 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed property. It is also not in dispute that subsequently a suit was filed for cancellation of the saledeed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by the opposite parties which has been registered as Original Suit No. 408 of 1997 and when opposite parties sought for interim injunction their application was rejected.
Earlier an order was passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 444 of 1995, wherein it was directed that the learned Magistrate would dispose of the application dated 29th March, 1995 regarding withdrawal of attachment and dropping of the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That said application was ultimately rejected on 8th April, 1996.
Faced with the dilemma that Civil Suits are already pending with regard to the property in dispute, learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4 urged that the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. be stayed.
It may, however, be seen that the main question for consideration in the present petition is whether the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amount to an abuse of the process of law or not and whether the learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to pass attachment order.
In the face of the stay order granted by this Court in Second Appeal No, 110 of 1988, it was not open at all to the learned UP Ziladhikari to initiate the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact, he did not have any jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and, therefore, he did not have any jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the order of attachment of the property in dispute when the Civil Courts were seized of the dispute.
The learned Magistrate has committed a manifest error in rejecting the application for dropping the proceedings under "Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is necessary to set aside the said order to secure the ends of justice.
In view of what has been stated above, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 144 under''Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alongwith the order dated 841996 and so also the orders dated 681994 and 881994 respectively, the preliminary order and attachment order are hereby quashed.