IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43377 of 2006 MOST.TARA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE KALAT CHOUDHARY, REISDENT OF VILLAGE-SUKHPUR, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-JAMUI………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KALI CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE MALUKI CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUKHPUR, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT OF SUPAUL. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Upendra Prasad, Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal and Miss. Chandrakala Jaiswal, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Amrit Abhijat and Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates. ------------- O R D E R The first party to a proceeding under Sections 144/145 Cr.P.C., being Case No.140(M) of 2000 has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Supaul, in Criminal Revision No.28 of 2004, whereby he has set aside the order dated 29.1.2004 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Supaul, in the said proceeding and has remitted the case back to the Magistrate to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law laid down in Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein submitted an application before the Officer-in-charge, Supaul P.S. alleging that O.P. No.2 and his associates were adamant in raising walls towards 2 dhoors of land of the petitioner appertaining to khata no.235, old plot no.4173, new plot - 2 - no.2290. The local police having looked into the matter recommended for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the proceeding was initiated against O.P. No.2 who was noticed to show cause. After appearance of O.P. No.2 and considering his show cause the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was converted into one under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 25.7.2000. The learned Magistrate having considered all the materials available on record including the documentary evidence adduced by the parties declared possession of the petitioner over the lands in dispute by his order dated 29.1.2004 and directed for removal of the wall. Aggrieved by the said order , O.P. No.2 herein preferred Cr. Revision No.28 of 2004 before the Sessions Court and during the pendency thereof also filed Title Suit No.6 of 2004 before Munsif, Supaul, for declaration of his right and title over the disputed lands. Although the fact of pendency of the title suit was brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Judge, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate and remitted the case back to the Magistrate in terms mentioned above. In the case of Ram Sumer Puri, Mahant, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1985 PLJR 14(SC) it was held that when a civil litigation is pending for the same property involving question of possession and the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders, there is no justification in initiating a parallel 145 proceeding. It was also held that the multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor public time should be wasted over - 3 - meaningless litigation. The learned Presiding Judge disposing the revision ought to have referred the parties to agitate their disputes and differences before the Civil Court in the pending Title Suit. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order of the revisional court is set aside. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 12th day of August, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.