IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19408 of 1999 1 SRI NIWAS CHAUBEY 2. SRI SUDARSHAN CHOUBEY, BOTH ARE SONS OF RAM SUCHIT CHOUBEY. 3. JANARDAN CHOUBEY 4. RAMANUJ CHOUBEY, BOTH SONS OF SRI NIWAS CHOUBEDY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- JAGMANPUR, P.S. DHANSOI ( RAJPUR),DIST. BUXAR……… PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOST. MANAKO DEVI WIFE OF KEDAR DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE—PAWANI, POST OFFICE- CHUNI, P.S. BUXAR(M), DIST. BUXAR………………………. OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 9 29-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, the complainant. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by an order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buxar passed in Case No. 327(M)/1998 dated 19-9- 1998 whereby a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the `Cr.P.C.) has been converted into a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. after overruling the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner to such an order on the ground of pendency of Title Suit 164/92 before the Munsif, Buxar. Petitioners are also aggrieved by the revisional order dated 24-7-1999 passed by 3rd. Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 162/1998 and 22/99. By that order the learned revisional court while taking note of the Supreme Court judgment reported in A.I.R. 1985 SC 472 to the effect that when civil litigation is pending for property wherein the question of possession is involved, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding 2 under section 145 Cr.P.C.could not be justified, held that the said law could not be applied in the present case because in the suit only the vendor of the petitioners were defendants. 3. The issue is whether on account of pendency of a civil suit where the disputed property is also involved a parallel proceeding should be permitted on the ground that purchaser from the defendants have not yet been made party to the suit 4. The answer to the aforesaid question, according to learned counsel for the petitioners lies in the theory of lis pendens which binds the petitioners also to the judgment and decree or any order that may be passed against their predecessors in interest i.e. the defendants from whom the petitiones have purchased the lands in dispute. It has further been submitted that the petitioners had already applied before the court below for being added as party and in all likelihood it must have been allowed. They have also undertaken that they shall not withdraw that application in the suit and persue the same for being added as party to the suit. In the light of aforesaid it has further been submitted on behalf of petitioners that the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be permitted to continue as it shall be an abuse of the process of the court because the opposite party no.2 had made an attempt to get an order of injunction from the civil court but when he could not succeed then he has resorted to getting a parallel proceeding initiated so as to take a chance before an Executive Magistrate who decides such 3 proceedings. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that on account of pendency of the civil suit involving the land in dispute and to which the vendor of the petitioners are admittedly a party, the parallel proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be permitted and its continuation shall be an abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, the prayer made in this application is allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The rights of the parties shall be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)