1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2651 OF 2009 Arjun Malji Vaijal ...Petitioner vs. V.M. Kakade & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.D.D. Madan, Sr.Counsel with Mr.S.M. Suryawanshi with Mr.S.D. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2 Grievance of the petitioner is that though several civil suits have been filed by him in respect of disputed property and the said suits are pending and in some of the suits, an observation is 2 made even by this court in Appeal from Order filed by the petitioner s father, it is noted that the petitioner s father was in possession of property. Even thereafter, orders have been passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. by the respondents. 3 The learned Senior Counsel Shri Madan invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahantram Saran Dass vs. Harish Mohan and another, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 758. He submitted that it is well settled position in law that after civil suit is filed by the parties, proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. cannot be continued and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 145 and to pass any orders thereon. Grievance is that in spite of the settled position in law, the respondents have pleased to pass various orders under Section 145. 4 The learned APP for the State fairly conceded that after the civil suit is filed, the 3 Magistrate cannot entertain any proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. 5 This being the position, the petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings under Section 145 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, will have to be quashed and set aside. 6 Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute, accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.)