Parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are unsustainable when a title suit is pending before a Civil Court.

The dispute involves approximately 7 Kattha 6 Dhur of land in Madhubani. Opposite Party No. 2 (OP2) claimed the land based on revisional survey records and a Land Possession Certificate (LPC), while the Petitioner claimed ownership via a registered sale deed.

In 2017, OP2 filed a Title Suit (No. 222 of 2017) in Civil Court for adjudication of title and possession.

Subsequently, in 2018, OP2 initiated proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Phulparas, which were converted into Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings, leading to the attachment of land and appointment of a receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C.

Despite a Circle Officer’s report confirming the pending civil suit, the SDM continued the criminal proceedings, citing the apprehension of a breach of peace.

The Petitioner challenged the SDM’s orders and the subsequent revisional court order dated 28.06.2022.

1. Whether the initiation and continuation of parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are justifiable when a civil suit for title and possession regarding the same property is already pending between the same parties.

The court primarily applied the ratio decidendi from the Supreme Court precedent Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 472), which establishes that when civil litigation is pending for a property where the question of possession is involved, there is no justification for initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

the decree of a Civil Court is binding on a Criminal Court in such matters

The Court observed that Title Suit No. 222 of 2017 was already active before the Sub-Judge-I, Jhanjharpur, involving the exact same land and parties, before the SDM proceedings commenced.

The Court noted that the SDM was explicitly informed of this pending litigation via the Circle Officer’s field report dated 06.04.2019, which recommended deferring to the Civil Court.

The High Court reasoned that the SDM and the Revisional Court erred by ignoring the binding legal principle that criminal courts should not adjudicate possession disputes already seized by a competent civil jurisdiction.

The Court found that the SDM's justification—focusing on the "breach of peace"—could not override the prohibition against parallel proceedings as settled by the Apex Court.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the SDM’s orders dated 12.05.2018 and 04.07.2018, as well as the revisional order dated 28.06.2022. The proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were terminated, and the parties were directed to seek appropriate relief regarding possession or security of possession from the Civil Court in the pending Title Suit.