Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1121 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11906 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present application the applicant has assailed the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (in short 'Magistrate') in Criminal Case No.10601 of 2022 (Santosh Singh and others Vs. Rakesh Singh) instituted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. whereby the Magistrate rejected the objection of the applicant filed in terms of Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. being not maintainable. The Magistrate rejected the objection of the applicant on the ground that the applicnat has not placed any document/evidence to support his plea that a case between the parties is pending before the civil court. The operative portion of the order dated 19.06.2023 reads as under. "ददोनोሪ पकोሪ कके वविदቛኋन अधधिविकቛኋ ककी बहस ससुननके कके उपरቛኋन्त पतቛኋविलली कቛኋ अविलदोकन वकयቛኋ गयቛኋ। नቛኋरली वनरलीकक थቛኋनቛኋ उमरलीबकेगमगगंज दቛኋरቛኋ ्ቚस्तसुत चቛኋलቛኋनली ररपदोरर वदनቛኋगंवकत 25.11.2022 पर सगंजቛኋन लकेकर सगं० ककी धिቛኋरቛኋ-145(1) कके तहत नदोवरस वनगरत ककी गयली हहै। वदतलीय पक रቛኋकके श धसगंह कके पक मम वनष्पቛኋवदत हቛኋमलीयतनቛኋमቛኋ कके आधिቛኋर पर भभूवम गቛኋरቛኋ सगंख्यቛኋ 378, 482 वि 373 ककी दቛኋधखिल खिቛኋररज रቛኋकके श धसगंह कके पक मम अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय दቛኋरቛኋ ककी गयली, धजसकके वविरु्ቍ ्ቚथम पक सन्तदोष धसगंह आवद कके दቛኋरቛኋ विቛኋजदቛኋयर ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत वदयቛኋ गयቛኋ। विቛኋजदቛኋयर ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत कके ्ቅम मम विसलीयतनቛኋमቛኋ कके आधिቛኋर पर पቛኋररत दቛኋधखिल खिቛኋररज कቛኋ आदकेश वदनቛኋगंक 05.10.2018 कदो आदकेश वदनቛኋगंक 17.02.2021 कके दቛኋरቛኋ स्थवगत वकयቛኋ गयቛኋ। भभूवम गቛኋरቛኋ सगंख्यቛኋ 482, 378, 373 पर ददोनोሪ पकोሪ कके मध्य कब्जकेदቛኋरली कदो लके करकके ्ቚबल शቛኋनन्त व्यविस्थቛኋ कके दृवቖኌगत ्ቚभቛኋरली वनरलीकक दቛኋरቛኋ 25.11.2022 कदो चቛኋलቛኋनली ररपदोरर ्ቚकेवषत कर अन्तगरत धिቛኋरቛኋ -146 द०्ቚ०सगं० कके तहत कቛኋयरविቛኋहली वकए जቛኋनके कके सቛኋथ ८०्ቚ०सगं० ककी धिቛኋरቛኋ -107/116 वि 116 (3) कके तहत आख्यቛኋ भली ्ቚस्तसुत ककी गयली वक सन्तदोष धसगंह आवद वि रቛኋकके श धसगंह कके मध्य जमलीनली वविविቛኋद कदो लके करकके कቛኋफकी कसलीदगली वि तनቛኋवि व्यቛኋ्቎ हहै, ददोनोሪ पकोሪ कदो भቛኋरली सके भቛኋरली जमቛኋनत वि मसुचलकके पर पቛኋविरन्द वकयቛኋ जቛኋय। भभूवम गቛኋरቛኋ सगंख्यቛኋ 378, 373 वि 482 पर कब्जकेदቛኋरली कदो लके करकके पबत शቛኋनन्त व्यविस्थቛኋ कके दृवቖኌयत ६०्ቚ०सगं० ककी धिቛኋरቛኋ-145 कके तहत कቛኋयरविቛኋहली ्ቚचधलत हहै, जहቛኋगं वदतलीय पक कቛኋ कथन हहै वक ्ቚकरण कके सम्बन्धि मम दलीविቛኋनली न्यቛኋयቛኋलय मम विቛኋद वविचቛኋरቛኋधिलीन रहतके हहए 145 द०्ቚ०सगं० ककी कቛኋयरविቛኋहली नहली ककी सकतली हहै , वकन्तसु वदतलीय पक दቛኋरቛኋ अपनके कथन कके समथरन मम मቛኋ० दलीविቛኋनली न्यቛኋयቛኋलय मम वविचቛኋरቛኋधिलीन विቛኋद ककी कदोई सቛኋቌኚय स्विरुप ्ቚवत दቛኋधखिल नहीሻ ककी गयली हहै। उपरदोक वविविकेचनቛኋ कके आधिቛኋर पर ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 145 (5) द०्ቚ०सगं० वदनቛኋगंवकत 26.12.2022 पदोषणलीय न हदोनके कके कቛኋरण वनरस्त हदोनके यदोग्य हहै। आदकेश अततः तदद नसुसቛኋर ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 145 (5) द०्ቚ०सगं० वदनቛኋगंवकत 26.12.2022 वनरस्त वकयቛኋ जቛኋतቛኋ हहै। ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ पत 146 (1) द०्ቚ०सगं० पर बहस हकेतसु पतቛኋविलली वदनቛኋगंक 06.07.2023 कदो पकेश हदो।" 3. The applicant has also assailed the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Gonda (in short 'Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No.268 of 2023 (Rakesh Singh Vs. Santosh Singh and 3 others). The relevant portion of the order reads as under. "अविलदोकन सके वविवदत हहै वक वविदቛኋन न्यቛኋयቛኋलय दቛኋरቛኋ उपरदोक ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ -पत पर उभयपकोሪ कके वविदቛኋन अधधिविकቛኋ ककी बहस ससुनकर एविगं पतቛኋविलली कቛኋ अविलदोकन करनके कके पश्चቛኋत आककेवपत आदकेश मम चቛኋलቛኋनली ररपदोरर कቛኋ उलकेखि करतके हहए एविगं अपनके आदकेश कके वनष्कषर मम यह उवलधखित करतके हहए वक - "भभूवम गቛኋरቛኋ सगंख्यቛኋ-482,378,373 पर ददोनोሪ पकोሪ कके मध्य कब्जकेदቛኋरली कदो लके करकके ्ቚबल शቛኋनन्त व्यविस्थቛኋ कके दृवቖኌगत ्ቚभቛኋरली वनरलीकक 25.11.2022 कदो चቛኋलቛኋनली ररपदोरर ्ቚकेवषत कर अन्तगरत धिቛኋरቛኋ -146 दगं०्ቚ०सगं० कके तहत कቛኋयरविቛኋहली वकयके जቛኋनके कके सቛኋथ दगं०्ቚ०सगं० ककी धिቛኋरቛኋ -107/116 वि 116 (3) कके तहत आख्यቛኋ भली ्ቚस्तसुत ककी गयली वक सन्तदोष धसगंह आवद वि रቛኋकके श धसगंह कके मध्य जमलीनली वविविቛኋद कदो लके करकके कቛኋफकी कसलीदगली वि तनቛኋवि व्यቛኋ्቎ हहै, ददोनोሪ पकोሪ कदो भቛኋरली सके भቛኋरली जमቛኋनत वि मसुचलकके पर पቛኋबन्द वकयቛኋ जቛኋयके। भभूवम गቛኋरቛኋ सगं० - 378,373 वि 482 पर कब्जकेदቛኋरली कदो लके करकके ्ቚबल शቛኋनन्त व्यविस्थቛኋ कके दृवቖኌगत दगं०्ቚ०सगं० ककी धिቛኋरቛኋ-145 कके तहत कቛኋयरविቛኋहली ्ቚचधलत हहै, जहቛኋगं वदतलीय पक कቛኋ कथन हहै वक ्ቚकरण कके सम्बन्धि मम दलीविቛኋनली न्यቛኋयቛኋलय मम विቛኋद वविचቛኋरቛኋधिलीन रहतके हहए 145 दगं०्ቚ०सगं० ककी कቛኋयरविቛኋहली नहीሻ ककी जቛኋ सकतली हहै, वकन्तसु वदतलीय पक दቛኋरቛኋ अपनके कथन कके समथरन मम दलीविቛኋनली न्यቛኋयቛኋलय मम वविचቛኋरቛኋधिलीन विቛኋद ककी कदोई सቛኋቌኚय स्विरूप ्ቚवत दቛኋधखिल नहीሻ ककी गयली हहै"- कቛኋ वनष्कषर दकेतके हहए वविदቛኋन अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय दቛኋरቛኋ ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ-पत 145 (5) पदोषणलीय न हदोनके कके कቛኋरण 146 (1) दगं०्ቚ०सगं० पर बहस हकेतसु पतቛኋविलली वनयत कर दली गयली। इस ्ቚकቛኋर जቛኋवहर हहै वक वविदቛኋन अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय दቛኋरቛኋ उभयपकोሪ कदो ससुनकर एविगं विቛኋद सके सम्बनन्धित भभूवम कके बቛኋवित थቛኋनके ककी चቛኋलቛኋनली आख्यቛኋ कቛኋ उलकेखि अपनके आदकेश मम करतके हहए वविस्ततृत आदकेश पቛኋररत वकयቛኋ गयቛኋ एविगं अपनके आदकेश मम ककी गई वविविकेचनቛኋ कके ्ቅम मम ्ቚቛኋथरनቛኋ-पत अन्तगरत धिቛኋरቛኋ-145 (5) दगं०्ቚ०सगं० पदोषणलीय न हदोनके कके कቛኋरण वनरस्त वकयके जቛኋनके कቛኋ आदकेश पቛኋररत वकयቛኋ गयቛኋ हहै। इस ्ቚकቛኋर जቛኋवहर हहै वक वविदቛኋन अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय नके सभली ्ቚपतोሪ कቛኋ अविलदोकन वकयके जቛኋनके कके पश्चቛኋत एविगं ्ቚस्तसुत मቛኋमलके कके सभली तथ्योሪ पर वविचቛኋर करतके हहए अन्तररम आदकेश पቛኋररत वकयቛኋ हहै, धजससके वकसली भली पक कके वविविቛኋवदत भभूवम सके सम्बनन्धित अधधिकቛኋरोሪ पर कदोई वविपरलीत ्ቚभቛኋवि पड़तቛኋ नजर नहीሻ आ रहቛኋ हहै। ऐसली नस्थवत मम वविदቛኋन अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय उप धजलቛኋ मधजस्रटकेर तरबगगंज, गदोण्डቛኋ दቛኋरቛኋ पቛኋररत आककेवपत आदकेश मम कदोई अविहैधिቛኋवनकतቛኋ नहीሻ पቛኋयली जቛኋतली हहै। अततः आककेवपत आदकेश वदनቛኋगंवकत 19.06.2023 मम न्यቛኋय ककी दृवቖኌ सके हस्तककेप वकयቛኋ जቛኋनቛኋ न्यቛኋयदोवचत ्ቚतलीत नहीሻ हदोतቛኋ हहै। तद्नसुसቛኋर दቛኋनण्डक वनगरቛኋनली न्यቛኋयवहत मम वनरस्त वकयके जቛኋनके यदोग्य हहै। आदकेश दቛኋनण्डक वनगरቛኋनली सगंख्यቛኋ-268/2023, रቛኋकके श धसगंह बनቛኋम सन्तदोष धसगंह आवद वनरस्त ककी जቛኋतली हहै। तलबशसुदቛኋ पतቛኋविलली, आदकेश ककी ्ቚवत सवहत अविर न्यቛኋयቛኋलय कदो अवविलम्ब विቛኋपस भकेजली जቛኋविके।" 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2023 passed in Application u/s 482 No.9198 of 2021 (Aman Deep Singh Shishya Vs. State of U.P. & another). The relevant portion of the order reads as under. "6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that property in question is known as Hari Nikunj Ashram. Present applicant (first party) is claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed and the gift deed said to have been executed by then owners of the property in question in favour of the predecessor in the interest of the applicant herein. However, opposite party no.2 is claiming his right and title over the property in question through separate society. At this juncture, it would not be befitting to consider this aspect of the matter which relates to the right and title of the parties and the same is subjudice before the civil court in Original Suit No.15 of 2021. Admittedly, Original Suit No.15 of 2021 has been filed on 16.01.2021. However, having considered the delay in decision on the interim injunction application (7-C), present applicant has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing a petition under Article 227 No.115 of 2021. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2021 has disposed of the aforesaid petition with a direction to decide the interim injunction application (Paper No.7-C) within a period of one month, however, for a period of two months or till the decision on the interim injunction application, whichever is earlier, parties were directed to maintain status-quo. During the existence of two months protection for maintaining status-quo and the pendency of the suit, police has submitted report dated 02.03.2021, which was taken into account while passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. Thus, order impugned has been passed not only during pendency of the suit but also during existence of the interim order granted by this Court. Apart from that while rejecting the interim injunction application, vide order dated 09.09.2021, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura has made an observation acknowledging the possession of the present applicant over the property in question, however, he has refused to grant interim injunction on the ground that plaintiff/applicant has failed to prove his possession legal. Learned Civil Court might has not passed interim injunction in favour of the present applicant, however, in my considered opinion, his observation with respect to the possession of the present applicant over the property in question cannot be ignored particularly for the purposes of parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. Opposite party no.2 herein has been arrayed as defendant no.1 in the Original Suit No.15 of 2021 and he has an ample opportunity to move an appropriate application before the Civil Court to get injunction in his favour with respect to the property in question along with the counter claim to establish his legal right and title over there. On the premise of pendency of the civil suit which has already been instituted on 06.01.2021 prior to the police report dated 02.01.2021 and preliminary order dated 04.01.2021 under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., there is no justification to continue the parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to examine the possession of the parties over the property in question. In the matter of Amrish Tiwari (supra) proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was dropped by learned Magistrate considering the pendency of the civil suit, however, same was reversed by the higher court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order passed by learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate and held that multiplicity of the litigation should be avoided as it is not in the interest of the parties and the public time would be wasted over meaningless litigation. It is further observed that when possession is being examined by the civil court and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute, the parallel proceeding i.e. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should not continue. Hon'ble Supreme Court in said case has considered the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra). For ready reference relevant paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the judgement passed in the case of Amresh Tiwari (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- "12. The question then is whether there is any infirmity in the order of the S.D.M. discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this subject-matter has been settled by the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., reported in, (1985) 1 SCC 427: (AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985 Cri LJ 752). In this case it has been held as follows: "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceedings 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 possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue." 13. We are unable to accept the submission that the principles laid down in Ram Sumers case (AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985 Cri LJ 752) would only apply if the civil Court has already adjudicated on the dispute regarding the property and given a finding. In our view Ram Sumers case is laying down that multiplicity of litigation should be avoided as it is not in the interest of the parties and public time would be wasted over meaningless litigation. On this principle it has been held that when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute, the parallel proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings should not continue. 14. Reliance has been placed on the case of Jhummamal alias Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in, (1988) 4 SCC 452: (AIR 1988 SC 1973: 1989 Cri LJ 82). It is submitted that this authority lays down that merely because a civil suit is pending does not mean that proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code should be set at naught. In our view this authority does not lay down any such broad proposition. In this case the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code had resulted in a concluded order. Thereafter the party, who had lost, filed civil proceedings. After filing the civil proceedings he prayed that the final order passed in the Section 145 proceedings be quashed. It is in that context that this Court held that merely because a civil suit had been filed did not mean that the concluded order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should be quashed. This is entirely a different situation. In this case the civil suit had been filed first. An Order of status quo had already been passed by the competent civil Court. Thereafter Section 145 proceedings were commenced. No final order had been passed in the proceedings under Section 145. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio laid down in Ram Sumers case (AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985 Cri LJ 752) (supra) fully applies. We clarify that we are not stating that in every case where a civil suit is filed. Section 145 proceedings would never lie. It is only in cases where civil suit is for possession or for declaration of title in respect of the same property and where reliefs regarding protection of the property concerned can be applied for and granted by the civil Court that proceedings under Section 145 should not be allowed to continue. This is because the civil court is competent to decide the question of title as well as possession between the parties and the orders of the civil Court would be binding on the Magistrate." 7. In a recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, viz. Mohd. Shakir vs. State of U.P. & others [2022 Live Law (SC) 727], it has been held that during pendency of civil suit qua property in question, while dropping the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., there is no justification for the learned Magistrate to record any finding or issue any interim direction. The Magistrate ought to have left all the relevant aspects for consideration of the competent civil court, without recording any finding in the matter. 8. Having careful consideration to the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matters as discussed above, in the given facts of the present case, there is no room of doubt that while the civil suit is pending between the parties with respect to the possession and title over the property in question, parties could avail appropriate remedy before the civil court concerned qua their possession and protection of the property during pendency of the suit. 9. Judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent does not come in rescue to his contention. Case of Jhunamal @ Devandas (supra) has been distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement passed in the case of Amresh Tiwari (supra). In the matter of Jhunamal @ Devandas (supra), after culmination of proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. civil suit was filed and Hon'ble High Court has quashed the order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the ground of pendency of the civil suit. In this backdrop of the facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that concluded proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should not be set at naught merely because unsuccessful party has approached before the civil court. So far as the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) is concerned, same is not much helpful as well to the opposite party wherein proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been held to be valid for want of adjudicate interim injunction from the civil court. It has been observed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cited case that proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be dropped only when the civil court has passed some effective order indicating as to which of the parties was entitled to possession. Apart from that proceeding should also be dropped when civil court has appointed a receiver or has made same arrangement for maintenance of such property. But, when the civil court does not clarify the position regarding the possession of contesting parties by passing an effective order, the criminal proceeding are not to be dropped because in that case both the parties may stake their claim for the possession and the situation may lead to the breach of peace. Applying the observation made by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the given circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that while deciding the interim injunction application (Paper No.7-C), learned trial court has made unequivocal observation acknowledging the possession of the present applicant over the property in question, however, refused to grant interim order on the ground that possession is not legal. While discussing the prima-facie case and balance of convenience, learned trial court has made observation that possession of the plaintiff (applicant) is for a short period that too it was restrictive and was not peaceful. It has also been observed that possession of the applicant was not in accordance with law. Thus, learned civil court has unequivocally indicated the possession of the plaintiff (applicant herein) over the property in question that might be illegal or not peaceful. In the matter of Sandeep Sahai (supra), co-ordinate Bench of this Court has declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant in that matter had an alternative remedy to approach before the authority concerned by filing an appropriate application/objection against the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. 10. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case wherein at the time of passing the preliminary order dated 04.05.2021 under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., interim order dated 13.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court was in existence and civil suit was pending and, precisely, learned civil court in its order dated 0909.2020 has indicated the possession of the plaintiff over the property in question, there is no justification to keep the parties indulge in a parallel criminal proceeding as enunciated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amresh Tiwari is still a law of land in the matter pertaining to proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This Court found an abuse of process of court in passing the impugned preliminary order dated 04.02.2021 under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., therefore, to secure the ends of justice, same is liable to be quashed. There is no need to say that the right, title and possession of the parties would be abided by the final outcome of the civil suit pending before the court competent and in case of any peculiar circumstances requiring interim protection parties can approach before the civil court for appropriate order." 5. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and material on record as also the recital of the orders impugned, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties is related to gata no(s).373, 378 and 482 and it further appears that on the issue related to possession over the said land some quarrel/altercation took place and, therefore, on 25.11.2022 the proceedings against the parties were initiated in terms of Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and the civil suit is not pending, as there is no pleading/evidence in this regard. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1985 SC 472, Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. State and Another, AIR 1994 SC 1436, Jhummamal alias Devandas Vs. State of M.P. & others, AIR 1988 SC 1973, Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, AIR 2000 SC 1504, Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of U.P., 2022 Live Law (SC) 727, M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1, Sri Siddeshwar Temple Trust Committee v. Sri Malingaraya Temple Charitable Trust, (2020) 18 SCC 417 and Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga Bux Singh Vs. Sukhdin, AIR 1959 All 141 on the issue according to which in given facts of the case proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated even if the case before the civil court is pending, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 7. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench