IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 596 of 2005 1. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Shri Satyapal Singh R/o 188/82,Reetha Mandi P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun 2. Smt. Radha Devi widow of Late Nathi Ram R/o188/82,Reetha Mandi P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun ……..…Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Ammo Devi W/o Shatrughan Singh R/o Quarter no. L-5, Railway Colony Dehradun & 188/82,Reetha Mandi P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun 2. State of Uttaranchal .....……Respondents Shri Pradeep Lohani, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent no. 2. Shri Dipendra Patni, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short Cr.P.C,) the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 20.07.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in criminal revision no. 83 of 2005, whereby said court has allowed the revision and dropped the proceedings drawn under section 145 Cr.P.C, by the City Magistrate. 2. Brief facts of the case are that property bearing no. 188/82, Reetha Mandi, Lakhibagh, Dehradun, was originally owned by one Jyoti Prasad. Petitioners claim themselves to be the daughters of the first wife of the original owner. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently Jyoti Prasad (original owner) got married to Chamni Devi. After the death of Jyoti Prasad, Chamni Devi vide registered sale deed dated 02.06.2005, transferred the property. This led to dispute as to the possession over the property in dispute between the purchaser Ammo Devi (respondent no. 1) and the petitioners. A case no. 9 of 2005, was registered on the basis of police report under section 145 3 Cr.P.C, by the City Magistrate on which notices were issued. By order dated 01.07.2005, City Magistrate directed the petitioners also be made parties as they claim to be the daughters in possession of the property of the original owner. Ammo Devi (respondent no. 1) filed criminal revision 83 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, Challenging the order of the City Magistrate on the ground that meanwhile original suit no. 233 of 2005, Ammo Devi vs. Puran & others has already been filed before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.D) Dehradun. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, allowed the revision and dismissed the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the matter of possession is subjudice before the Civil Court in which direction has been issued that the status-quo be maintained by the parties. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that civil suit no. 233 of 2005, instituted by respondent no. 1 Ammo Devi is pending before the civil court in which interim order to maintain status-quo in respect of possession has been passed. It is 4 also not disputed that petitioners Krishna Devi and Radha Devi are also parties in said suit. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by District Judge, suffers from any illegality. It is settled principle of law that when the matter is subjudice before civil court in respect of possession, the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C, would not serve useful purpose, unless it is a case of emergency. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent no. 1, to file civil suit to defeat the criminal proceedings. Had it been simple case like that, this Court would have inclined to interfere with the order passed by the revisional court, but another civil suit no. 235 is also said to have been pending which was filed by the petitioner Krishna Devi herself in the year 2005 before the civil court for cancellation of the sale deed in respect of the property in question by which respondent no. 1 had purchased the property. 5 6. In the above circumstances this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is dismissed with the observation that it is left open to the civil court to examine as to which of the parties were actually in possession, on the date of sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 1. Dt:31.05.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)