ORDER
Uma Nath Singh, J.
1. The revision impugns the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bareli, Raisen, dated 31-3-98, whereby possession of the land in question was given to a receiver on a report received from the police.
2. Both the parties submitted that since a civil suit registered as No. 15A/97 (Original No. 11A/88) is pending before the learned District Judge, Raisen at final stage of the trial, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to go into the matter on the question of possession under Sections 145/146, Cr.PC. They further submitted that the out come of the criminal revision will be coterminus with the result of the suit and placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhinka and Ors. v. Charan Singh (AIR 1959 SC 960). In para 16 of the said judgment the Apex Court has held as under :–
“16. This leads us to the consideration of the legal effect of the order made by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 145(6) of the Code, a Magistrate is authorized to issue an order declaring a party to be entitled to possession of a land until evicted therefrom in due course of law. The Magistrate docs not purport to decide a party’s title or right to possession of the land but expressly reserves that question to be decided in due course of law. The foundation of his jurisdiction is on apprehension of the breach of the peace, and, with that object, he makes a temporary order irrespective of the rights of the parties, which will have to be agitated and disposed of in the manner provided by law. The life of the said order is coterminus with the passing of a decree by a Civil Court and the moment of a Civil Court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the Criminal Court. The Privy Council in Dinomoni Chowdhrani v. Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani, (1901) 29 Ind App 24, 33, tersely states that effect of orders under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus:–
“These orders are merely police orders made to prevent breaches of the peace. They decide no question of title…..”.
We, therefore, hold that a provisional order of a Magistrate in regard to possession irrespective of the rights of the parties cannot enable a person to resist the suit under Section 180 of the Act.”
3. Under the circumstances, this criminal revision is disposed of with direction that the District Judge, Raisen shall dispose of the Civil Suit No. 15A/97 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court. It is placed on record that Counsel for the parties undertake to fully co-operate with, the District Court for early disposal of the suit.
4. It is clarified that interim orders passed by this Court and money deposited, if any, in pursuance thereof shall be subject to the out come of the civil suit.
5. Accordingly, the criminal revision stands disposed of.
6. C.C. as per rules.
