IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 of 2005 Sageer S/o Imamuddin ….Petitioner Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others …….Respondents Mr. Bhupesh Joshi, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla Learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Dated: 18-05-2010 [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral)] By way of this petition, U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.01.2005, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/III F.T.C. Hardwar, in Criminal Revision NO. 448/2004, Smt. Allah Rakkhi vs. State of Uttaranchal and another. Brief facts of the case are that on 10-11-2004, Smt. Allah Rakhi moved an application before the S.D.M. Lakshar, stating therein that she is recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue papers, pertaining to the land in question. When the complainant was trying to sow the crop over the land in question, the petitioner and other persons started raising obstructions, hence request was made to draw the proceeding U/S 145 Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.M. summoned the report of the Police Station concerned and thereafter passed the preliminary order U/S 145 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also passed an order U/S 146(1) Cr.P.C. thereby attaching the property in question. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for recalling the order dated 19.11.2004, passed U/S 146(1) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on 3.12.2004, the Magistrate recalled that order dated 19.11.2004. The respondent No. 3 filed revision before the Court of Sessions Judge against the order dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Magistrate and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 12-01-2005 quashed the order dated 3.12.2004 and allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact between the parties that suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed by respondent No. 3 and the Civil Court passed the order of statusquo in that civil suit. This fact has been stated in paragraph-16 in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3. In view of the aforesaid circumstance that the civil suit is pending between the parties with regard to the property in question, I think that there was no justification on the part of the learned S.D.M. to continue the proceeding U/S 145 Cr.P.C. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the proceeding of case No. 09/2004, Smt. Allah Rakkhi vs. State of Uttaranhcal and another, U/S 145 Cr.P.C., Pending before the S.D.M. Lakshar should be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceeding of case No. 09/2004, Smt. Allah Rakkhi vs. State of uttaranchal and another, U/S 145 Cr.P.C. pending before the S.D.M. Lakshar is hereby quashed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB