CRIMINAL REVISION No.120 OF 2002 ------- Against the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Gaya in Misc.Case no. 1315 of 2001. ======= 1. SUNDARI DEVI WIFE OF SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH 2. SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE KEDAR SINGH 3. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH 4. UMESH KUMAR SINGH 5. DINESH KUMAR SINGH ALL THREE SONS OF SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH ALL OF VILLAGE SAHIYA, POLICE STATION- BAJIRGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA ----------- 2ND PARTY-PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. DUDHESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE KEDAR SINGH 2. SHATRUGHAN SINGH SON OF DUDHESHWAR SINGH -------- 1ST PARTY-OPPOSITE PARTIES THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- OPPOSITE PARTY ------ For the petitioners: Mr. Raghav Prasad For the opposite parties: Mr. Ram Naresh Sharma and Mr. Ram Narayan For the State: Mr. S.Azeem, Addl.P.P. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH M.Singh,J., This application is directed against the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Gaya in Misc.Case no. 1315 of 2001 by which a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C has been converted into one under section 145 Cr.P.C. 2. Initially a petition was given on behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 concerning apprehension of breach of peace for the land which was subject - 2 - matter of Second Appeal pending before the High Court without mentioning number of second appeal basing which a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. Parties were asked to show cause. They filed their respective show cause giving detail of the disputed land, admitting that ownership and possession was challenged in a T.S.No. 22/76 in which ownership as well as the possession was claimed by both the parties but decided in favour of petitioners that was confirmed in appeal (T.A.No.44/98) also but even then opposite party no.2 was apprehending breach of peace, proceeding was converted into one under section 145 Cr.P.C. 3. Now the only question remains to decide by this Court is whether the criminal Court can pass any order under section 145 Cr.P.C, when the matter is decided by competent civil court in its trial and in appeal and thereafter pending before the High Court in S.A.no. 33/2000. If any order is passed under section 145 Cr.P.C. that is subject to decision of competent Court that is Civil Court in connection with possession over land. In this case concurrently two Courts – trial as well as appellate court have decided right, title and - 3 - possession over the disputed land of the parties, decree of which is valid and effective till set aside, reverse or deviated by second appellate court but that is not done. At present both the decrees are fully effective. Though there is no need to further make reference of any decision of the High Court or Apex Court that even the proceeding already initiated shall be dropped whenever it comes before the Court (Magistrate) where the matter is pending. 4. Reference can be made of a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 472 in which their Lordships have clearly observed which reads as follows:- “When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under S.145 of the Code would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted - 4 - over meaningless litigation. Decision of Allahabad High Court, Reversed”. 5. In the instant case, proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has been converted into one under section 145 Cr.P.C. that means initiation of proceeding even after having knowledge of decision of a competent court that cannot be allowed to continue for a moment. 6. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed and the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Gaya in Misc. Case no. 1315 of 2001 is set aside. (Mandhata Singh,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 03.08.2009 AI/A.F.R.