LexJHUMMAMAL ALIAS DEVANDAS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JHUMMAMAL ALIAS DEV ANDAS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. AUGUST 25, 1988 B [M.H. KANIA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 145-An order under- Deals only with factum of possessi'!n on a particular day-Confers no title to remain in possession of disputed property-Civil court has jurisdiction to give finding.different from that of Magistrare-Unsuccess- C fu/ party approaching civil court does not warrant~etting aside of conc- luded order. The mortgagee in possession leased out the shop to the appellant and delivered possession. His entering of possession became a subject matter of dispute with respondent No. 2, in which the appellant w.as D dispossessed. E F G H In the proceedings initiated under s. 145 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate found that the appellant was entitled to restoration of possession since he .was dispossessed forcibly and wrongfully within the terms of proviso t.o s. 145(4) Cr. P.C. The respondent tiled a suit and obtained tempo- rnry injunction against the appellant. That injunction was vacated by Lhe Additional District Judge who found that the appellant was in pos- session of the shop on the date of occurrence of incident. The respon- dent's revision application challenging the final order under s. 145(6) .Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Accepting resp.ondent's petition under s. 482 Cr. P.C., for quashing the proceedings under s. 145 the High Court, following the judgment in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., [1985] I SCC 427, took the view that since the civil proceedings in respect of the disputed premises were pending before the competent civil court where interim reliefs have been prayed for and obtained, there was no justification for continuing the proceedings under s. 145 Cr. P.C. pending before the SDM. Allowing the appeal by special leave, IJELD: The High Court was in error m quashing the proceedings under s. 145 Cr. P.C. pending before the Sub-Divisional Magi.irate. [589F, 587EiF] An .order made under s. 145 Cr. P.C. deals only with the factum 584 ' JHUMMAMAL v. STATE OF M.P. ISHETTY, J.] 585 of possession of the party as on a particular day, It confers no title to A remain in possession of the disputed property, The order is subject to decision of the civil court, The unsuccessfui party therefore must. get relief only in the civil court, He may move the civii court with properly constituted suit, He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession, The. civil court has jurisdiction, to give a !inding different from that which the Magistrate has reached·, (5890-E] · B The ratio of the decision in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v, State of U. P. is that a party should not be permitted to litigate before .the criminal court when the civil snit is pending in respect of the same subject matter, That does not mean that a concluded.order under s, 145 Cr,P.C. made by the Magistrate of com~tent jurisdiction, as in the· C instant case, should he set at naught mer~ly because the unsuccessfnl party has approached the civil court. [589C-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order -dated 25 .4 .. 1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1135 of 1985. Shanti Bhushan, R.M. Tiwari, L.P. Gaur and Ms. Rani Jethma- lani for the Appellant. U.R. Lalit (not present), P.S. Poti, S.K. Gambhir, Sanj.ay Sarin, . S.N. Khare and T.C. Sharma for the Respondents. Tbe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 0 E JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J, We grant special leave and pro- F ceed to dispose of the appeal. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated April 25, 1986 quashing the final order made under sec. 145 of Cr. P.C..in respect of a shop premises. The shop was in possession of one Asgarali son of Akbar Ali as mortgagee since G October 17, 1969. On August 7, 1982, Asgarali was said to have leased out the shop to the petitioner and also .delivered possession thereof. The entering.of possession by the petitioner became a subject matter of dispute. Apprehending breach of peace, the police initiated pro- ceedings under sec. 145 Cr. P.C. before the Additional Oistrict Magis- trate, Ujjain. In that proceedings, the petitioner was party no. 2 and H' A B 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. r.espondent no. 2 was party no. I. On August 13, 1982 the Magistrate made a prelimi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.