Allahabad High Court
Rambabu Shivhare vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107424
Court No. - 89
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3624 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rambabu Shivhare
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Srivastava,Virendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Sri Sunil Kumar Saroj, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Archana Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, brief holder for the State are present.
2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the order dated 30.7.2022 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra by which the application of the revisionist filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed and the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Agra by which the revisional court affirmed the order dated 30.07.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. After perusal of the order dated 30.7.2022 wherein the revisionist is a landlord of two shops and his tenant, i.e., respondent no. 2 is the tenant of his land (shops in question) since 21.05.2009 and a civil suit is pending between the parties in the Civil Court.
4. In Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 1504 (3-Judge Bench), the Supreme Court after relying upon the judgment in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. & Ors. 1985 (1) SCC 472, the Supreme Court observed that:
"14...It is in that context that this Court held that merely because a civil suit had been filed did not mean that the concluded Order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should be quashed. This is entirely a different situation. In this case the civil suit had been filed first. An Order of status quo had already been passed by the competent civil court. Thereafter Section 145 proceedings were commenced. No final order had been passed in the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Ram Sumers' case (supra) fully applies.
We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed. Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where relief regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate."
5. The civil suit for a permanent injunction between the parties which has been instituted on 21.05.2009 by the petitioner, is pending.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Ishan
