AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Natarajan, J.—The petitioner, A party in M.G. No. 68/86 on the file of Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Arantangi has preferred this petition under S.482, Crl P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under S. 145(1), Cr.P.C.
instituted on the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Aranthangi.
It is seen from the preliminary order passed under S.145(1), Crl.P.C. that there is a .dispute over the title of the house site and pathway in S.
No. 18/3 of Aranthangi Town and as a consequence, there is likehold of breach of peace and hence both the parties were called upon to attend
the court and put in written statement, affidavits and other documents in support of their respective claims. This petition has been filed by A. party
to quash the proceedings on the ground that in respect of same dispute. B. Party, namely, respondents 2 and 3 and another claiming easementary
right to the pathway have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1 55/86 against the petitioner herein and also filed an interim application for appointment of a
Commissioner and the Commissioner so Appointed, has also submitted a report. It is also submitted that when a civil litigation is pending initiation
of a parallel criminal proceeding under S.145, Crl.P.C. would not be justified. In support of the above, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein their Lordships have observed
as follows:
When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel
Criminal proceeding under S.145 Cr.P.C. would not be justifide. The 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 the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be
allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.
I have gone through the plaint filed in OS. No 155 of 1986 where the present B. Party and another have instituted a suit for a declaration that
they are entitled to the easementary right of pathway over the ABCD portion in the sketch appended therewith which is discribed as suit property
in the suit and for injunction restraining the defendant and his men from any way interfering with the plaintiffs right of way over the suit property and
for a mandatory injunction to remove the granite stones planted by the defendant on the western and northern edge of the suit property and to
keep the suit property as a vacant pathway. In the description of property the land under dispute is shown as comprised in S. No. 18/3
approximately an extent 1 cent out of 10.18 acre., and the boundaries also have been shown. It is clear from the allegations made in the plaint and
the description of the property that the subject matter of proceedings under S.145(l) Cr.P.C. and the subject matter of the suit are one and the
same and in view of the fact that the parties are agitating the same in a competent civil court, as laid down by the Supreme Court, quoted supra,
parallel proceedings should not be allowed to go on by wasting the public time. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision
cited supra, I am of the view that the present proceedings under S. 145(1) Cr.P.C. should not be allowed and the proceedings in M.C.68 of 1986
on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi are liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is
allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in M.C. No. 68 of 1986 are quashed.