2026:JHHC:4849 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 344 of 2024 ------ Lalan Giri, son of Late Dhanlal Giri, resident of Village Manatu, P.O. Manatu, P.S. Manatu, District Palamau .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Medninagar, P.O. & P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau 3. Rajiv Ranjan, son of Surendrajit Singh, resident of Village Manatu, P.O. Manatu, P.S. Manatu, District Palamau 4. Harindar Giri, son of Late Dhanlal Giri, resident of Village Manatu, P.O. Manatu, P.S. Manatu, District Palamau 5. Satish Giri, son of Late Dhanlal Giri, resident of Village Manatu, P.O. Manatu, P.S. Manatu, District Palamau .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nirupama, A.C. to Sr. S.C. II ------ Order No.08 / Dated : 18.02.2026 Can a Receiver be appointed under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Executive Magistrate during the pendency of a civil suit pending between both sides? This is the question which has been raised in the instant writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the second party in Miscellaneous Case No.2 of 2022 under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Medininagar which has been initiated at the instance of first party Rajiv Ranjan with respect to Khata No.79, Plot Nos. 18 and 21, area total 18 decimals. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the first party had already filed Original Suit No.441 of 2021 impleading the present petitioner and others which is pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.-I), Daltonganj. During the pendency of this suit, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate to have initiated parallel proceeding and that too have passed an order with respect to dwelling house of the petitioner for appointing a Receiver vide order dated 12.01.2022. 4. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Principal Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj which was rejected vide order dated 2026:JHHC:4849 24.01.2024 in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2022 by observing that it was not maintainable as the impugned order was interlocutory in nature. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that since no judicial order was passed on merit therefore, the present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Executive Magistrate by which Receiver has been appointed. It is further submitted that the case was posted for hearing on 19.01.2022, but the order of appointing Receiver was passed on 12.01.2022 without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 6. Although Private Respondent had appeared in the case, but none appears on his behalf. 7. It has been held in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., (1985) 1 SCC 427 : 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. In the present case, from the averment made in the pleadings, it appears that a civil suit is already pending between the parties, therefore, there is no justification in passing the order by which Receiver will be appointed in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Order is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 20.02.2026