Crl. Misc. No. M- 24417 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 24417 of 2009 Date of decision : 07.12.2011 Bhag Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 21.08.2009, Annexure P-6, whereby proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been initiated on the ground that for the same cause, the parties have approached the civil Court, which has granted some interim injunction also. The factual matrix of the case is not in any dispute, however, counsel for the parties have made submission that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be held in continuation even when matter is pending before the civil Court. This view of course has to be read in the light of the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C., which are basically meant for meeting the Crl. Misc. No. M- 24417 of 2009 2 emergent situations. Once the parties have approached the civil Court and civil Court is seized of the dispute, the question in regard to the right of the parties is to be determined by the civil Court. In such circumstances, it is not always appropriate to permit proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In this regard support can be had from the decision in the case of Rajesh Lamba and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Criminal Misc.No.81057-M of 2006, decided on 10.12.2010. This was a case where the petitioner had approached this court primarily on the ground that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be continued once the matter was taken to or was pending in the civil Court. In this case, reference was made to Dharampal and others Vs. Ramshri (Smt.) and others, (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 435. The Court in this case has observed that even where an interim order is passed by a civil court then an order appointing a receiver is required to be withdrawn as the matter is seized before the civil court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal's case (supra), has even interpreted the word “determination” under Section 146 Cr.P.C. to say that it need not be a final determination of the rights of the parties by the Civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that even final determination of the rights of the parties by the civil Court is not an essential condition for cessation of the attachment order and its consequent withdrawal. As held, the determination may be even of tentative at the interim stage when the competent Court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a Receiver in respect of the subject-matter of the dispute Crl. Misc. No. M- 24417 of 2009 3 pending the final decision in the suit. It is viewed that moment the competent court does so, even at the interim stage, the order of attachment passed by they Magistrate has to come to an end. The relevant observations in this regard are as under:- “It is obvious from sub-section (1) of Section 146, that the Magistrate is given power to attach the subject of dispute “until the competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof.” The determination by a competent court of the rights of the parties spoken of there has not necessarily to be a final determination. The determination may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of the subject matter of the dispute pending the final decision in the suit. The moment the competent court does so, even at the interim stage, the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate has to come to an end. Otherwise, there will be inconsistency between the order passed by the civil Court and the order of attachment passed by the Magistrate. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 146 itself takes cognizance of such a situation when it states that “Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of any breach of peace with regard to the subject of dispute.” When a civil court passes an order of injunction or receiver, it is the civil court which is seized of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 24417 of 2009 4 matter and any breech of its order can be punished by it according to law. Hence, on the passing of the interlocutory order by the civil court, it can legitimately be said that there is no longer any likelihood of the breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute.” In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and ors., AIR 1985 SC 472 has held that when civil litigation is pending for property, wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code would not be justified. The impugned order, thus, cannot be sustained. However, any observation made in this order would not have any effect on the rights of the parties, which are already before the civil Court. The civil court would decide in accordance with law the rights of the parties. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. December 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE