IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 1117 of 2011 1. Smt Walkesi W/o Shri Lal Bachan R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Awdesh Kumar S/o Shri Lal Bachan R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 3. Raju S/o Shri Lal Bachan R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Lal Bachan R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar ………………............Petitioners Versus 1. Bhrigu Nath S/o Sri Hardwar Prasad R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Munni Lal S/o Sri Hardwar Prasad R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 3. Hari Lal S/o Sri Hardwar Prasad R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 4. Bihari Lal S/o Sri Hardwar Prasad 2 R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar 5. Fateh Singh S/o Sri Hardwar Prasad R/o Gram Fatehganj Tehsil Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar ………….........Respondents Shri Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners have challenged order dated 26.07.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 30.01.2006, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, of Rudrapur under section 145/146 of Cr.P.C. (3) Brief facts, of the case, are that Station House Officer of Police Station Gadarpur, submitted a report on 28.04.1998, relating to dispute of possession over Khasra No. 16, 57/2 and 58 measuring 38 Bheegha, 4 Biswa in Village Fatehganj. 3 On said report the proceedings under section 145/146 of Cr.P.C., were drawn. After hearing the parties, who are relatives, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur, vide his order dated 12.08.1998, found that it was the respondents Bhrigu Nath and others , who were in possession for more than two months of the date, the matter was reported, and accordingly directed the attached land be given back to the respondents. Aggrieved by said order, Lal Bachan (Predecessor in title of petitioners) filed Criminal Revision No. 02 of 1998, which was decided by the revisional court vide order dated 18.11.1998, and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, was directed to decide the matter afresh. In compliance of said order the matter was reheard and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur, vide its order dated 30.01.2006, in Case No. 11/10 of 1998, relating to the proceedings under section 145/146 of Cr.P.C., again came to the same conclusion that the property in question was in possession of respondent Bhrigu Nath and others for a period of two months from the date, the matter was reported, as such, they are entitled to get possession of the land from the ' Supurdgar ' with whom the land was given after its attachment. Once again Lal Bachan, predecessor in title of the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2006. The revisional court (Additional Sessions 4 Judge/Ist Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar), after hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the Magistrate, and dismissed the revision. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is already dispute pending before the Civil Court in respect of the property in question, as such, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take action under section 145/146 of Cr.P.C. (5) However, perusal of the papers on record suggest that there was no such suit pending, rather the proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Officer. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned order, this court finds that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, has exercised the powers under the emergency situation when the breach was reported by the Station House Officer, the proceedings appears to have been initiated on the complaint of the first party Lal Bachan i.e. predecessor in title of the petitioners. As such, it is not open for them to say that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, has exercised his appears wrongly. As far as, the proceedings pending before the revenue court are concerned, there appears 5 no contradictory order passed by such authority against the order passed by the Magistrate. Undoubtedly the order passed by such authority in regular proceedings, would supercede the order passed by the Magistrate. (7) For the reasons as discussed above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Revisional Court as to the possession of respondents. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the litigation pending before the revenue court, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.12.2011 N.P