S.S. Shinde, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The brief facts for filing this Petition are as under:-
On 29.04.2010, the plot no.1 out of survey no.86/2 situated at Ahmedpur was purchased by the petitioner and the complainant- Shivkant Lasune. On 24.05.2010, one Gundappa Vishwanath Nijwante had challenged the said sale-deed in Regular Civil Suit No.03/2010 and has prayed for the declaration of ownership and injunction. The said Regular Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur.
During pendency of the said suit, the complainant - Shivkant Lasune has sold his interest in the said property in favour of the petitioner and executed an agreement of sale on receipt of Rs. 21,000/- on 20.01.2012. The petitioner has constructed 15 tin sheds in plot no.1. On 23.08.2012, the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for getting electric connection. The M.S.E.B. has given electric connection in the name of petitioner. The petitioner is running the business in the said plot no.1.
On 28.07.2013, the complainant has filed the complaint against the petitioner and his family members and on the basis of the said complaint, the authorities have taken action under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, on 31.10.2013, the Police Officer, Police Station, Ahmedpur has made report to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Ahmedpur and recommended for action to be taken under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Hence, the petitioner filed present Criminal Writ Petition praying to quash and set aside initiation of the Criminal Proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur based on the police report bearing Outward No.1834/2013 dated 31.10.2013 submitted from the Police Station, Ahmedpur.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, initiation of the criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur based on the police report bearing Outward No.1834/2013 dated 31st October, 2013 submitted from the Police Station, Ahmedpur could not have been entertained or registered in view of the fact that, there is pending civil suit, in which the complainant and the petitioner are the parties. It is submitted that, the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant V/s State of U.P. and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427 held that, when a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted that, under Order XL Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, even the Civil court can appoint receiver in case the court is convinced about such prayer. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that, though the petitioner and the respondent no.3 are parties to the civil suit, they are the co-defendant, and therefore, the respondent no.3 cannot ask for any relief about the possession of the suit property. It is submitted that, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submits that, the Petition may be rejected. In the alternate, he submits that, in case, this court is inclined to allow the Petition, in that case, appropriate remedy available before the Civil Court may be kept open.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.
6. It is not in dispute that, the Regular Civil Suit No.3/2010 is pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. The present petitioner is the defendant no.3 and the present respondent no.3 is the defendant no.4 in the said Civil Suit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is open for the respondent no.3 herein to take civil remedy, if he has any grievance about the possession of the property or proper maintenance of the property.
In case, the respondent no.3 has any grievance about the possession or otherwise, he can certainly take appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. Either he can file separate proceedings which can be heard along with the pending suit or he can take recourse to provisions of Order XL Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for appointment of receiver.
7. Taking overall view of the matter, in our opinion, since Regular Civil Suit No.3/2010 is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, it is open for the respondent no.3 to take appropriate remedy before the Civil Court, and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra), there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code.
In the said case, the Supreme Court held thus :-
"When a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145, CrPC. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Therefore, the parallel proceeding should not continue and the order of the magistrate directing initiation of such a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC must be quashed. Appeal allowed."
8. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C' and stands disposed of accordingly. However, we make it clear that, it will be open for the respondent no.3 to take appropriate remedy before the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.
9. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.