IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37066 of 2007 1. SAGIR MIAN 2. Sheikh Nasir Both sons of Late Tabarak Mian 3. Kalamuddin Ahmad 4. Zeyauddin Ahmad Both sons of Late Sheikh Umar 5. Md Kameen 6. Abdul Kaium Both sons of Late Ahmad Mian All residents of Nautan Hariya, P.S. Uchkagaon, District – Gopalganj. … Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Isha , Son of Late Sheikh Habib, residents of Nautan Hariya, P.S. Uchkagaon, District – Gopalganj. …. Opp. Parties ------ 3 1.12.2008 Heard Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Sr. Advocate and Mr. V.R. Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No. 2 has entered appearance by filing vakalatnama , at the time of hearing of this application he is conspicuous by his absence. The petitioners who are the members of the second party in the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. being Misc. Case No. 505 of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj in the said Misc. case, whereby he has attached the disputed lands under section 146(1) Cr.P.C. and the consequential order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned - 2 - Presiding Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Gopalganj in Cr. Revision NO. 216 of 2006, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 13.9.2006 has been dismissed. The specific case of the petitioners is that in respect of the same piece of land which is the subject matter of the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. a Title Suit bearing T.S. No. 155 of 2005 between the same parties is pending in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge I, Gopalganj, and in view of the decision of Apex Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. The State of U.P. and ors. Reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427 = AIR 1985 SC 472, the action both of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate as also the Revisional Court was unwarranted in law and is fit to be quashed. In the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) the Apex Court observed that when a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties and in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of property during the pendency of the dispute there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. Their Lordships further observed that multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time allowed - 3 - to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Due regard being had to the categoric decision and findings of the Apex Court I find no other alternative but to allow this application and quash the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revisional Court. Accordingly the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)