1 IN THE HGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.490/2010 (Kishanlal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order : July 19th 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioner. In this revision petition, filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.07.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh, Hqrs. Nohar in Criminal Revision No.22/10 (19/10) whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Guddi Devi and set aside the order dated 14.6.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar in case No.3/10 (State Vs. Guddi Devi & Ors.) by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar passed an order of attachment of land of Chak No.23 NTR measuring 5 bigha at stone No.340/420, Murabba No.24 Kila No.21 to 24 measuring 9-9 biswas and land at Stone No.340/429 of Murabba No.35 Kila No.25 measuring 9 biswa at stone 339/428 Murabba No.25 Kila No.21 to 25 measuring 9-9 biswa and appointed Tehsildar Nohar as receiver of the land for taking 2 possession. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while exercising the power under Section 146 Cr.P.C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order of attachment on 14.6.2010 in the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C. initiated upon the complaint filed by SHO, Police Station Nohar. Against which, a revision petition was filed by the respondent Guddi Devi before Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Hanumangarh Hqrs. Nohar and the said Court alowed the revision petition on the ground that civil suit and revenue suit for the same land is pending, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C. cannot run simultaneously. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed in revision petition is erroneous because the petitioner has filed a revenue suit before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar under Section 53 and 188 of he Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for partition of the land and the said property is ancestral property and the suit is for partition, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not barred because proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is filed only to the extent of 5 bigha of land which was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1985 but subsequently respondent Guddi Devi purchased the land in question under registered sale deed, therefore, the order passed 3 by revisional Court deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that revisional Court allowed the revision petition on the ground that the petitioner filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nohar for specific performance of agreement dated 01.01.1985, therefore, the proceedings under Section 146 cannot be initiated but this ground is not tenable because a suit was filed by the petitioner for specific performance of the contract-agreement and the same was not filed for deciding the title of the land in question, therefore, the finding given by learned revisional Court is illegal and erroneous and as such impugned order dated 08.07.2010 may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court towards the judgments reported in (2004) 1 SCC 438, AIR 1954 SC 397 and 2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 783. While citing the above judgments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of above judgments, even if a civil suit is pending the proceedings under Section 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C. can be initiated. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments cited by 4 him. Upon perusal of the order impugned passed by revision Court, it will reveal that the revision petition was allowed by the revisional court while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1985 Cr.L.R. (SC) 57 on the ground that civil suit as well as revenue suit are pending with regard to the same land, therefore, no proceedings under Section 145 and 146 (1) before a criminal court can run simultaneously. In various judgments, it has categorically been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that parallel proceedings with regard to title, possession of the same land should not be allowed to continue in the criminal court if matter is pending in the civil court. In my opinion, the order impugned passed by revisional court is based upon sound reasons and after considering facts of the case and the adjudication made by Hon'ble Apex Court. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are based upon altogether different facts and in this case admittedly the land in question, which is ordered to be attached by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar, is subject matter of the civil suit as well as revenue suit. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the revisional Court. Therefore, no case is made out for interference in the 5 order impugned dated 08.07.2010 passed by revisional Court. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J arun