Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010167612025 2026:GAU-AS:7794 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./927/2025 KHALIQUE UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE NAMAR ALI CHOUDHURY. R/O- GHONIALA, P.O- MALUGRAM, P.S- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788002 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:MOIN UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE HAJI KOTU MIA BARBHUIYA. R/O- VILLAGE- RAMNAGAR PART- IV TILAGRAM P.S- SILCHAR DIST. -CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR H R A CHOUDHURY,M. HOSSAIN,MR. S ROY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, S BEGUM (R2),SABRISH AHMED (R2),MS A HUSSAIN (R2),DARAK ULLAH (R2) Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 04.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. H. Laskar for the petitioner Khalique Uddin Choudhury and learned counsel Mr. D. Ullah for the respondent Moin Uddin Barbhuiya and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sarmah for the respondent State. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a proceeding was initiated way back in the Year 2009 by the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he had purchased a parcel of land admeasuring 6 kathas appertaining to Patta No. 15 vide registered deed No. 280 dated 07.03.2003 and another plot of land admeasuring 4 kathas appertaining to Patta No. 15 vide registered deed No. 306 dated 26.04.2007 from different pattadars. A total parcel of land admeasuring 10 kathas was purchased by the petitioner from (i) Nasir Uddinm, (ii) karim Uddin, (iii) Taj Uddin, and (iv) jashim Uddin, all sons of late Hussain Mia Barbhuiya and 4 kathas of land was purchased from Sona Mia Barbhuiya, son of Abdul Gofur i.e., the uncle of respondent No. 2, Page No.# 3/9 Moin Uddin Barbhuiya. However, the respondent No. 2 brought up a case against the petitioner with allegations of breach of peace claiming that respondent No. 2 is in possession of the aforementioned 10 kathas of land along with 6 kathas of land. This case was registered as Case No. 190M/2009. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 22.04.2009, notices were issued to the petitioner and the disputed land was attached under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short). 4. Aggrieved by the ex-parte attachment order, the petitioner preferred Criminal revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written statement in the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cachar at Silchar and subsequently the Circle Officer, Silchar, Sadori circle submitted an enquiry report dated 27.01.2011 with respect to the aforementioned disputed land wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the 10 kathas of disputed land. 5. Thereafter, it is submitted that respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya filed a petition dated 07.04.2011 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cachar at Silchar with prayer that the petitioner Page No.# 4/9 Khalique Uddin Choudhury, may be asked to return the transaction amount as per the registered deed along with registration costs which will be paid by the respondent No. 2. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has admitted the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner which substantiates the petitioner’s claim that he is the rightful owner of the plot of 10 kathas of land purchased by him. 6. Both the parties contested the proceeding and examined witnesses and meanwhile, during the pendency of this proceeding of Case No. 190M/2009, a Title suit was filed by the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya which was registered as T.S. No. 189/2014. 7. The learned Civil Judge allowed ample of opportunities to the respondent No. 2 to contest the proceedings but had to finally dismiss the Title suit due to non prosecution of the T.S. No. 189/2014 by the respondent No. 2. Meanwhile, in the proceedings of Case No. 190M/2009 under Section 145 of the Cr.PC, the respondent No. 2 did not cross- examine the witnesses adduced by the petitioner despite several opportunities being accorded to the respondent No. 2 by the learned ADM. The cross-examination was closed, but the respondent No. 2 but did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order. Page No.# 5/9 8. The order dated 08.07.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar in criminal revision No. 32/2025, reveals that against the withdrawal of the attachment order, the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya preferred a revision registered as Crl.Rev.P. No. 44/2022 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), and his review was allowed. Meanwhile, the Case No. 190M/2009 was fixed for delivery of orders on 09.11.2023 but the respondent No. 2 submitted a petition under Section 411 of the Cr.PC with prayer for withdrawal of this case from the Court of Learned ADM, Shri A M. Mazumder to any other Court. It is submitted that thereafter the learned ADM, Shri Y. Borthakur heard the matter and passed the order dated 28.03.2025, declaring the possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner Khalique Uddin Choudhury. 9. On being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya preferred a Crl.Rev.P. under Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for short) before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 in Crl.Rev. No. 32/2025, the case was remanded back to the Court of the learned ADM to facilitate the first party i.e., the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya to cross-examine the DWs Page No.# 6/9 within 3 (three) months from the date of the order. 10. The petitioner is highly aggrieved by this order as the case under Section 145/146 of the Cr.PC was pending since the Year 2009 and again the matter has been remanded back for cross-examination causing further delay impeding the ends of justice. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. D. Ullah laid stress in his argument that the order was correctly passed as the learned ADM instead of attaching 10 kathas of land had overstepped his jurisdiction and attached 16 kathas of land which was not even claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed ownership of only 10 kathas of land and not 16 kathas of land. 12. The order dated 28.03.2025 reflects that a direction was made by the learned ADM to hand over possession of the disputed land to the petitioner Khalique Uddin Choudhury to the extent of 16 kathas. The scheduled land directed to be handed over to the petitioner Khalique Uddin Choudhury is reflected herein below:- “Schedule of the D/L: Dist. Cachar, P.S. - Silchar, Porgona - Barakpar, Mouza -Tarapur Part - IV, under 2nd R.S Patta No. 15, Dag No. 65, of land measuring 16 Kathas (approx), which is bounded by: East - Land of Tajamul Ali, West - Land of aforesaid Dag & Patta, North -PWD Road, South - Land of Babu Ali.” Page No.# 7/9 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has not claimed 16 kathas of land as the land is clearly described in Paragraph-7 of the petition as:- “one plot measuring 10 Khatas situated in Mouza-Tarapur Part-IV, Ph- Barakpur, 2nd RS Patta No. 15, Dag No. 65 in the district of Cachar, Assam bounded by: East- House of Iskar Ali, S/O Golam Rabbani West- Sona Mia Barbhuiya North- PWD Road (NH-53) South- Babu Mia, S/O Tajamul Ali.” 14. It is also submitted that the schedule of land and the boundary is not similar to the schedule described in the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned ADM in Case No. 190M/2009. 15. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 16. It is submitted by both the parties that a Title suit has been brought up by the respondent No. 2, Moin Uddin Barbhuiya relating to the aforementioned disputed land which is registered as T.S. No. 171/2025. It is submitted that the petitioner has appeared as defendant and has filed written statement in the Title suit. Issues have also been framed. T.S. No. 171/2025 is pending at the stage of evidence. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. The State Page No.# 8/9 of U.P. and Ors reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427, wherein it has been observed that:- “…………… 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 to 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 and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code has been initiated and the property in dispute has been attached. We leave it open to either party to move the appellate Judge in the civil litigation for appropriate interim orders, if so advised, in the event of dispute relating to possession.” 18. I have considered the fact that this is a similar situation wherein two different litigations are pending relating to the same cause of action and the Civil Court is the best Court to decide the ownership or the possession of the plot of land which has been in dispute in connection with Case no. 190M/2009. 19. Reverting back to this case, it is held that both the parties have Page No.# 9/9 approached the Civil Court relating to the same plot of land which also includes the land in dispute in this case. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked and the proceeding of Crl.Rev. No. 32/2025, dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the proceeding of the Case No. 190M/2009, dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned ADM are set aside and quashed in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 20. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant