1 10 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.67/1995 Hasti Mal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 26th March 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Pradeep Shah for the non-petitioner. ….. BY THE COURT: Though nobody has appeared for the petitioner despite the matter having been called out twice over but, after having perused the record and after having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, this Court finds no reason to keep this old revision petition relating to the proceedings under Section 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. pending any further. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.11.1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bali (‘the SDM’) whereby the proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. were sought to be initiated. The substance of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner, as noticed in the order of admission of this revision petition dated 13.03.1995, has been that in relation to the property in question, the petitioner and the others have filed the civil suit for perpetual injunction against the grand-son and grand-daughter of the non-petitioner No. 2 wherein the civil Court had issued an ad interim injunction on 2 21.10.1994 for maintaining status quo. It has, thus, been the submission on the part of the petitioner that the dispute being adjudicated in the civil Court, parallel proceedings under sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. in the relation to the same property were not warranted. While admitting this revision petition on 13.03.1995, this Court requisitioned the record and stayed further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 23/1994 as taken up by the SDM; and, before any effective proceedings, the record was sent by the SDM for the purpose of this revision petition. Perusal of the record further makes it clear that indeed the litigation relating to the property in question was pending in the civil Court; and the application for temporary injunction was allowed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bali on 26.10.1994. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. were not justified. Moreover, looking to the facts and the relevant background aspects of this case, at this length of time, the circumstances as might have been found existing by the learned SDM for adopting the proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken subsisting yet; and there does not appear any reason or justification to permit continuation of the proceedings under Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. any further, of course, while leaving it open for the parties/authorities concerned to take recourse to the appropriate remedies/measures in accordance with law, if occasion so arise. 3 Accordingly and as a result of the discussion aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order is set aside; and the proceedings Sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 23/1994 stand annulled. The parties/authorities concerned shall, however, be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedies/measures in accordance with law, if occasion so arise. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni .