1 wp3582-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3582 OF 2010 Vimal Builder’s .. Petitioner Versus Mr. Nadrajan (deceased) Through Legal heirs and others .. Respondents Mr. Shanta Rao and Mrs. Pratibha D. i/by Shri Iqbal Ansari for the petitioner Mr. N. Ponvel- Respondent No.1(c) in person Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21st January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rao the petitioner, Mr. Ponvel- Respondent No.1(c) in person and Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner- Vimal Builders, has challenged the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 45 th Court, Mumbai in Case No. 1083 and the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Revision Application No. 420 of 2010. 3. The Petitioner- Vimal Builders is interested in the property which is the subject matter of an application under section 145 of the 2 wp3582-10 Criminal procedure Code. The said proceeding came to be decided on 4.2.2008 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The property which is the subject matter of aforesaid proceedings has been allegedly purchased by the petitioner with all development rights and executed power of attorney. It appears that there is some dispute over the possession of the property and to develop it further for which it is has been purchased as alleged. Therefore, the present- Petitioner Builder admittedly has filed a Civil Suit against the present respondents amongst others. Some of the respondents are parties to the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was decided on 4.2.2008 and the same order is impugned by petitioner. Concluding part of the said order is reproduced below: “There is sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on record that Deonar Industrial Co-op. Society was in possession of disputed premises on the date of passing preliminary order under sub section 1 of Section 145 CR.P.C. Therefore, I declare the possession of disputed premises u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. that Deonar Industrial Premises Co-op. Society was in possession of disputed premises on the relevant date of preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. which passed on 7.10.1994. Deonar Industrial Premises Co-op. Society is entitled to possession of disputed premises until evicted therefrom in due course of law and respondents or any other persons on behalf of the respondents forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction. The above order shall be served against the respondents and it shall be 3 wp3582-10 published in the manner laid down in sub-section 3 of section 145 Cr.P.C. Application u/s 145 Cr. P.C. Disposed of.” 4. After carefully reading of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the fact that the said property was involved in dispute since 1994 is to the knowledge of the petitioner and the public at large. Despite this, the petitioner had entered into transaction in the year 2003, which is a period covering preliminary order passed on 7.10.1994. The impugned order is dated 4.2.2008. Thus, in the light of civil disputes pending before the competent Court, the present application cannot be entertained. Civil Court is competent Court to decide the right and title and all such disputes relating to possession. Moreover, such dispute involves question of facts which cannot be decided in a writ petition. Admittedly the present petitioner was never party to the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. P.C. All such issues are sub-judiced in the civil suit filed by the petitioner. As such, the impugned order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be challenged in this Petition. The petition is devoid of merit. In the result, the Petition is dismissed. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )