Judgment:
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 21, 1988, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, by which the learned Executive Magistrate, treating the case as of an emergency, attached the property in question and appointed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Markrana, as the Receiver to manage the property.
2. Shiv Raj moved an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Makrana, on January 10, 1988, against Shri Ram, Sukh Ram, Om Prakash, Ram Niwas, Ganga Ram and Ram Karan under Sections 107, 116 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application that on January 9, 1988, at about 11.00 a.m., non-petitioners No. 1 to 7 took-away the goods of his hotel and forcibly took the possession of the plot in question. As they have illegally taken the possession of the plot and there is a danger to his life, also, from these persons, proper action may be taken against them. It was, also, mentioned that the accused-persons have taken-away his two sons, also. Certain other facts were, also, mentioned in that complaint and it was prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. may be initiated and the plot in question may be attached. A complaint under Sections 342 and 447 IPC was, also, lodged by Shiv Ram against these accused. The Station House Officer, on January 12, 1988, after necessary investigation, presented a compliant under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar. On the receipt of this complaint, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate draw a preliminary order on January 12, 1988, and issued notices to both the parties. After receipt of the notice, both the parties appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and presented their case. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated January 21, 1988, treating the case as of emergency, ordered for the attachment of the property and appointed the S.H.O., Police Station, Makrana, as the Receiver to manage the property till the matter is finally disposed of regarding the question as to who was the person in possession of the plot in question. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the revenue suit was filed by Premsukh against Shiv Raj for the declaration and temporary injunction, which revenue suit is pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, and the title of the suit is : Case No. 193 of 1985 Premsukh v. Shiv Raj. In that revenue suit, a temporary injunction was granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, on December 31, 1980, in favour of Prcm Sukh and it was directe that Shiv Raj should not interfere in the possession of Premsukh. This order was later on confirmed after notice to the opposite party on August 31, 1984. The petitioner Kanhaiya Lal purchased this land from Premsukh and thereafter Kanhaiya Lal moved an application for impleading himself as a party in that revenue suit, pending in the Court of the SubDivisional Officer, Parbatsar, and that application was allowed and Kanhaiya Lal was ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit. It was further submitted that on January 6, 1988, Shiv Raj filed an application in that revenue suit under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of the Receiver and notices of the application were issued to the opposite party on January 8, 1988 but he failed to obtain any interim order on his application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act regarding the appointment of Receiver and, therefore, the recourse to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not justified. The case of the petitioner is that when a revenue suit is already pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, between the same parties for determination of the rights with respect to the land in question, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are uncalled-for. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on : Arvind Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1986 R.L.R. 306, Mani Ram and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan 1983 W.L.N. (U.C.) 32. Megh Raj and Ors. v. The State and Ors. 1986 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 395 and 1986 R.C.C. 166. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court and submitted that the non-petitioner Shiv Raj in possession of the land in question and there was a stay in his favour and inspite of this stay granted in favour of the non-petitioner, the opposite party has taken the law in their hands and dispossessed him from the plot in question, and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are maintainable. His further submission is that the rights granted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are independent rights and under the garb of the civil suit, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be debarred. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has placed reliance over the decisions rendered in : Subhkaran v. The State of Rajasthan (1987 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 84, Rattan Arya etc. etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1444 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1887.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The same question of law came-up for consideration before this Court and this Court, after considering the whole law on the point, came to the conclusion that the parallel proceedings with respect to the same property and between the same parties cannot be allowed to be continued. In this view of the matter, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the parties are not necessary to be considered as the matter already stands decided by this Court after considering the law on the point.
7. It is not in dispute that a revenue suit with respect to the same property is pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, in which the rights of the parties will be determined. In that revenue suit, a temporary injunction was granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, which was made absolute after hearing both the parties. By that order the learned Sub-Divisional Officer directed Shiv Raj not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in Khasra No. 230/1, 230/1/1 and 230/1/2. He was further restrained from making any construction. He was, also, restrained from doing any business in the two wooden stalls. He was, also, restrained from taking any debris, lying in that plot of land. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner that Shiv Raj filed an application in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of the Receiver and on that application only notices were issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The non-petitioner, on the one hand is taking recourse to the revenue Court for the appointment of the Receiver and when he failed to get the receiver appointed and the Court merely issued notices in that matter, then he approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by filing a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which cannot be permitted. The parallel proceedings with respect to the same property and between the same parties cannot be allowed to be continued. When the revenue suit is already pending between the parties and the rights of the parties will be determined by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, with respect to this plot of land and an injunction has already been granted by the Court, these parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are, therefore therefore, wholly uncalled-for and cannot be allowed to continue. The remedy under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is special remedy which is intended to maintain public peace with respect to the dispute relating to the immovable property and those proceedings are not meant for t he decide the dispute between the contesting parties or to adjudicate-upon the rights of the parties. When the revenue Court, in the present case, is seized of the matter then the respective rights of the parties will be decided by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, and initiation of the parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such parallel proceedings with respect to the same subject-matter and dispute should not be allowed to continue and should be quashed.
8. In the result, this revision petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed. The order dated January 21,1988, passed by the learned Sub-Divisiona Magistrate, Parbatsar, as well as the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., initiated by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, are quashed.