1. On 3. 7. 87 learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Karimganj on a complaint filed by the opposite party herein drew up a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. By order dated 7. 12. 87 the learned Magistrate also attached the building which is a shop house. The said order runs as follows :
"Both parties present. Second party have not submitted W/SI made a local inspection. The possession could not be ascertained. Ask the police to attach the building. Fix24. 12. 87 for W/S of the parties."
2. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein, who was impleaded as second party in that proceeding, approached the learned Sessions Judge for invoking revisional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed and the order of attachment of the learned trial Court was maintained. While disposing of the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows :
"The existence of a civil suit, as contended by him, does not bar a proceeding U/S. 145."
From the order of the learned Sessions Judge I find that the house in question is a shop house.
3. I have heard Mr. S. Kataki and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the parties.
4. The present petition is liable to be allowed on two grounds, namely, the attachment order is not in accordance with law and that apart the pendency of a civil suit is a bar for drawing up a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C.
5. It is a settled law that a property can be attached only in case of emergency. By the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7. 12. 87 the property was attached only because the learned Court could not ascertain possession after local inspection. This cannot be a ground for attachment. Before passing an attachment order under section 145 Cr. P. C., the Court must be satisfied that there is an emergency for such an order. In view of the above, the order dated 7. 11. d7 is liable to be quashed.
6. There is no dispute at the Bar that after filing the petition for drawing up a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. , the opposite party herein, filed a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act being Title Suit No. 317/87 and it is pending before the learned Sadar Munsiff, Karimganj. In Ram Sumer Puri vs. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1985 SC 472 the Apex Court held that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. would not be justified and that parallel proceeding should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when the possession is being examined by and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of a receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. According to their Lordships multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.
7. Ratio laid down above squarely covers the case in hand. As the suit under the Specific Relief Act is pending the present proceeding is not at all maintainable. The opposite party may seek adequate remedies before the learned civil Court as held by the Apex Court.
8. For what has been stated above, I find merit in the present petition and accordingly it is accepted by quashing the entire proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. drawn up by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Karimganj and registered as Case No. 215 (M)/87.
