Parallel Section 145 CrPC proceedings are barred during the subsistence of a civil court's interim injunction.

The petitioners are members of a Joint Hindu Family involving unpartitioned lands under Survey Nos. 407/1 and 407/2

A civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction (RCSA No. 78/2020) is currently pending, in which a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was granted in favor of the petitioners on November 11, 2020

Respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. alleging a breach of peace, which the SDM dismissed on December 30, 2022, citing the pending civil suit

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed a fresh application on similar allegations. On March 27, 2023, the SDM ordered the attachment of the property and appointed a Receiver

The petitioners’ revision against this order was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, on August 3, 2023

1. Whether parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. are maintainable when a competent Civil Court is already seized of the property dispute and an interim injunction is in force.

2. Whether the re-institution of Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings on the same issue after a prior dismissal constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily applied the principle that parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding possession cannot continue when a civil court has already passed an interim order regarding the same property

Supreme Court precedents of Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan (2010) 10 SCC 758 and Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others (1985) AIR SC 472, which establish that the initiation of Section 145 proceedings is not justified when a civil suit is pending and the rights of the parties are being adjudicated therein

The Court also noted the principles of judicial finality and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the culmination of proceedings

The Court observed that the SDM had initially correctly dismissed the Section 145 Cr.P.C. application because the question of title and possession was already before a Civil Court in RCSA No. 78/2020

However, the SDM erred by subsequently entertaining a fresh application on identical facts only two months later without recording any contrary reasoning

The High Court reasoned that since an injunction order dated November 11, 2020, was already in force, the executive magistrate's order to attach the property and appoint a Receiver bypassed the Civil Court's authority

The Court held that re-initiating such proceedings constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law and violates the principle of judicial finality

The Court held that Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings are not maintainable when a Civil Court is seized of the matter and an interim injunction is active

The Civil Court was directed to expedite the disposal of Civil Suit No. 78/2020 and was authorized to appoint a temporary receiver if necessary to preserve the property until the final decree