Y ^T^T^R^ ^TT^TT^T ^ryj^ 'S^ '^1^!^-^, ^TH-M^KS, (c|<r')|^^< ^^ ^^.'-.•-^...^^............-.-..^ 200 3n^?r ^^ (4c<f^®ii<^T) ^nw^f^T^^^r fSinote Bench: Hon'bl^ PETITIONBV CoinDloinant RESPONOENTS/ Non-G|yl»ait Oevrarrt years, (C.&) Sahu, S/o Jhadurom Sahu, aged about- 39 |Vo Viltog®Sitfapara Arang, Ustt. Rfli|Mir Vs. ScAik 1. 70| 2. 42| Bothll 3. Sahnwu Sohu, Di^t. 4. N< R/ 5 N 6. D4; 7.a (4 08.082007 Mr. C.R. Sahu, Adv. for t Mr. 6.K. Beriwal, Dy. Adff Heari. By the instcmt petitio^i pestitioner has impugned the Revisjon No.44/07 whereby CM^t<n<i1Ti 'RP^ ^f fe^t ^^K '^^tRR^iT^r Mr Justic®(>hir«ndraMlshral Ram Sflrfiu, S/o Bakhni Ram Sohu, aged [years. Ram Sahu, S/o Samaru Ram Sdiu, aged lyears. 11& 2 R/o Sitlaparo Aran9, Distt-. Raipur (C.&.) Tu|lsiram Ram Sahu, 50 yeorsy S/o Jethuram i, R/o College Chowk, ©ulluRcsta, Aarang, U^tt. Raipur (CjQ) ^mi Sahu, 77 years, S/o Bakhru ftam Sahu, >. at presCTt Villa9e Tarra Navapara, Rc^im, Di|?tt. Rdpur (C.&.) |khiya Bai Widow of Colu Ram Sohu (Dead) D4s^<ri"h S/o Rarrtbharosha, (Dead) b<<vshir Bai W/o Ratan Lal SaSnu (Dead) Sljcte ofC.&. Raipur, Throu^is Collector, Rdpir :1&) Di|?tt. •he petitioner. &eneral for respondent hto.S-Stote. under Sed-ion 482 of the Cr.P.C. the order dcrt-ed 5.6.2(X)7 passed in Criminal learned 12 Additional Sessions Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,C90.- XI-HC—78 3^£r^ww^, ^xn-M'Ko, (<<^i^^< ® KINdl *t<|cb W^ 200 3TI^9T^ f<Tli<=h TfSH 3TR?T st)+i|ct? 3:HI^?T TRW (4c|[^c<<^T) ^^nw^rf^T ^n^r ^ leanked orld (F.T.C.), ftatpur has rejed|e< herein. The grievance of th< Section 145 of Cr.P.C. order dated 28.2.2003 possession of the disputec^ proceedings under Sectic^n accordingly ordered the and since then the petition^^ below on the basis of eviderl respondent No.l-Samaru before two months from Sertion 145 ofCr.P.C. i.e. on| From perusal of Magistrorte dcrted 19.3.2007 the Addittonal Sessions Ji that against the order date^l in the Court of Additjonal mortter was remanded direct-ion to decide the considering the oral and |ed the criminal revision of the petitioner po'|ssessjon back cM^t<y1<11l ^l^<nT ^fel^t <F»1^K ^ 3?fRpRT'3TT^T WlOiS petitioner is thot in the proceedings under Sub Oivisional Magjstrort-e has passed an held that the petitioner herein wos in property two months prior to initiort'ion of 145 of Cr.P.C. i.e. on 27.6.1998 and to be given to the petitibner herein is in possession. However, both the court-s |ce avaitable on record hme wrongly hetd that in possession of the disput-ed property |o*e of initiofion of the proceedings under 127.6.1998. order passed by the Sub Divisional |, which has been subsequentty confirmed by ijdge by the impu9nec( order, it is observed 28.2.2003 a revision petition was preferred 5|essions Judge, the scune was allowed and the to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with a p^t-ition under Sect-ion 145 of Cr.P.C. after |docurnentary evidence available on record. the XI-HC—78 (SS) 3^" ^ii^t^, ^•y4i<o, ts|<7I>iy^< ^INdl *^lcb W^ 200 an^T ^ra? (4^^<^) 3TT^T ^T f<TlJch TT^IT 'STIct^T $h^iq>) '^nW^H3>TT^T -^ T<here<irfter, the Sub Djvi^i > ^ ^ ^ -i.^ has re^wdgd a findin9 o'f| possession of the dispute^ 3i ;^ .% •• ^ proceeding under Secfrio^ subseguently affirmed b^ concurrent finding of fact- No.l-Samaru was in possess|i 5o far as the otherl petitioner that during pend^ncy Cr.P.C. a civil suit has alre^ and in view of the same the! been dropped is concerne^l considering the law involv^ coiTclusJon that where t( proceedings under Section Sed'ion 145 cannot be drop| In the resuh-, there ordw warranting interfererje The petjtion being devoid same is hereby dismissal. cbHfd^'1 'HTRoff ^fe^ <f^^i< ^3iRm'3?n^?T ional Magistrote vide order doted 19.3.2007 fact- thot respondent Nto.l- Scmaru was m properl'y two months before the dat'e when 145 wos drawn. The cbove order was the impugned order and thus there is by the courts below that in fact- respondent [ion of the disputed propert'y. objection raised by learned counsel for the of the proceeding under Sed-ion 145 of ^dy been instituted by the petitioner herein [proceedings under Section 145 ought to have I, learned Additional Sessions Judge affrer ^d in this regard has rightly arrived at a te civil suit is filed subseguent to the |145, in that situotion the proceeding under j»ed. |js no iHegality or infirmity in the impugned <ce by this Court- under Sed-ion 482 of Cr.P.C. f substance is liable to be dismissed and the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge