I :Zi t. J?^ 1111 1£(-! IS" ^A-^ HIGH COURT OF CV.HATT1SGARH AT B1LASPVR \ PBTITIONER Ctlmlnal M.P. No.91 OF 2006 Ram Kumar S/oSfari Indal, aged about 70 years, occupation ^riculturist, resident of viUage Devipur, Thana aud Tahsil Surajpur Disrict Surguja ( CG). VERSUS RESPOHDBNT t Ram Pratap S/o Late ladal Sahu, aged about 72 years, occupation agriciilturist, residcnt of VUlage Devipur, Thaaa and Tahsil Siirajpin- District Suiguja (C.G.). PBTITION UNDBR 8BCTION 4S3 OF CODB OF CWMINAL PROCBDURB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Sunil Tripathi, Adwocate for the petitioner. Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed oa 31/7/2009) 1. Ttus petitioa ^ for quashment oforder dated 22/7/2006 passed by fhe First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in crimiaal revjsion No. 228/2005 afRrming the order dated 12/8/2005 p^sed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Surajpur in cruninal M.J.C. No. 408/91 whereby leamed Sub Divisional M^istrate ater passing the preluaiaaty order under Section 145(1) of the Code of Crinunal F'rocedure, 1973 (ia short fhe code) passed the order for attachment of fhe property under Section 146(1) ofttie Code aad ia fhe l^ht of chal suit for partition and possession-disposed of fhe .•( proceedlngin tenns ofSectfoal46(l) offhe Code. 2. Lcamed counsel for fhe petitioner sutomits that when the proceeding under Section 145 of fhe Code is dropped fhe M^istrate ceases its jurisdiction to contiaue fhe attachaient 6. A ^- Learaed counsel for the petitioner fttrthcr submits that ia case of \ . civil suit relating to fhe possession proceeding uader Sectton 145 of fhe Code should be dropped. Leanied counsel for ffae petitioner plaeed reliance ia the inatter of Ramsuma-parl Mahant Vs. Btste of U.P. reported in_^]0^985 SC 472 in wliicb it has bcen held by the Apex Court fhat parallel proceedmg in civil aA& a-uaiaal shoiild not be pertnitted to continue aad ia the event of pendency of croil Mtigatioa criaunal procceding should be dropped. On the other haad, learaed couasel for the respoadent opposed the petidon and subinits that order is perfect aad legal. Section 146 (1) offheCodereadsasfoUows:- 146. Pwwer to dttach suli/ecfe qftBsyute «ind to dRpoInt reiseiver.-(l) If the Magistrale at any time c/ter making the arder under sub secfton (1) of Section 14S considers the case to be one of enwrgency, or if he deddes that none of ihe parties was then m such possession as is referred to in section 145, or ifheis unable fo satisfy twnsetf as to which of them was then in such possession of the subjecf ofdispute, he may attcich the subjed of dispute ivttil a wmpetent court has delennined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled (o the possession thereof. Pravided that sudz Mccgstra'te may withdraw the attadzment at anyttmeifhe is safisfied thcet there is no longer cazy likelihood of breach of the peaoe with regard to the subjeat ofdispute. :."'!ti~ -^ 7. Section 146 (1) ofthe Codc provides the reaaedy ofattachiaentand \ in case the M^istrate is unable to satisfy, hiiusclf as to which of fhem. was fh.cn ia such posscssion of ffae subjcct of dispute, he inay attach the subject of dispute luitil a coiapeteut court has detenained the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the posscssion fhereof. By involdng such provisions learaed Sda Divisional Magistrate has attached the property aad has dropped fhe proceeding. Courtwas coiapeteat to pass such order. Court has not cominitted any fflegalily in passing thc ordcr uapugaed. However, parity inay avail ftie reiaedy for grant of uyiuiction before the Cnril Court, I do not find any scope for iuterference. Consequeutiy, ttus pctition is liable to be disimssed aad it is hereby dismissed. j... •.y..::..:ISd/-, I^EShanna Judge ^L- 1L- .