IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 224 of 2009 With Interim Relief App. No. 2501/2009 Gulshan Nayyar, S/o Late Madan Lal Nayar. ...... Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ...... Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2. 2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing and disposal. The petition is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage. 3. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following relief: (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the City Magistrate, Haridwar to decide the application dated 30.9.2008 expeditiously. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing to City Magistrate, Haridwar to release the property in question. (iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioner. (iv) Cost o the petition be awarded in favour of petitioner. 4. In a nutshell, the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the City Magistrate, Haridwar and further, an order u/s 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was also passed on 11.02.2003 by the City Magistrate, Haridwar. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders before the Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by filing criminal revision no. 161/2003 and the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order u/s 146 (1) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.03.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred before this Court by the aggrieved party/respondent no. 2 to quash the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The said petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2008 & the order of the learned Sessions Judge was confirmed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide its order dated 24.03.2004 had directed the City Magistrate, Haridwar to act further in accordance with its order and dispose of the proceedings immediately. After setting aside the order of the attachment passed by the City Magistrate, Haridwar, it would be a natural consequence that the order of attachment passed by the learned City Magistrate would not be in existence. In such a situation, the City Magistrate has to act in accordance with law immediately. Since September, 2008 no further proceeding has been carried out on one pretext or the other, and the case has been adjourned. 7. As per the order of the learned Sessions Judge by which he has quashed the order of the City Magistrate u/s 146 (1) Cr.P.C. attaching the immovable property of the parties, the City Magistrate was directed to act upon in accordance with the order of the learned Sessions Judge but inspite of the application submitted by the petitioner on 30.09.2008 to comply the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned City Magistrate has not passed any order. The perusal of the order sheet reveals that the respondent was not appearing in the proceeding and compliance of the order has not been made though presence of the respondent is not required to comply the order of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the proceeding u/s 146 (1) Cr.P.C. in which the property has to be released in favour of the person from whose possession the property has been taken. As far as the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. is concerned, presence of the parties is required and the magistrate can proceed in accordance with law u/s 145 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the learned City Magistrate is directed to disposed of the application of the petitioner filed before him on 30.09.2008 within one month after receipt of this order he will pass a speaking order on the application filed by the petitioner. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the interim relief application also stands disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 28.04.2009 V.K