AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 1973 ::1988 CriAppR(SC) 229 ::1988 APLJ(Cri) 401 ::1988 UP CriR 288 ::1988 (4) SCC 452 ::(1988) AllCriR 573 ::1988 SCC(Cri) 974 ::(1988) All WC 1163 ::(1988) 14 All LR 757 ::1988 (2) APLJ 45 ::1988 BLJR 674 ::1988 BBCJ 134 ::1988 (3) Crimes 288 ::1988 (2) Ker LT 355 ::(1988) 2 Ker LJ 355 ::(1988) Jab LJ 584 ::1988 (18) REPORTS 160 ::(1988) 3 SCJ 401 ::1988 ALLAPPCAS (Cri) 229 ::1989 HRR 23 ::1988 (3) JT 479

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madhya Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. H. Kania, K. Jagannatha Shetty , JJ

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.145— Dispute regarding immovable property - Civil suit pending - Power under S.145 not to be exercised - However order passed under S.145 cannot be set at naught only because unsuccessful party has approached Civil @page-SC1974Court.Misc. Crl. Case No. 1135 of 1985, D/- 25-4-1986 (M.P.), Reversed. It is true that in cases of dispute regarding immovable property a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal Court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject matter. That does not however mean that a concluded order under S.145, Cr. P.C. made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under S.145 Cr. P.C., deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil Court. The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil Court. He may move the civil 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 finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached.(Para 7) The quashing by the High C....