Civil decree binding on parallel possession proceedings; criminal attachment quashed where title and possession were already decided.

Where a civil suit concerning the same property, title and possession has already been decided, a parallel proceeding under criminal process is not justified. The Supreme Court held that the civil court's decree on title and possession was binding in this context, and the parties should seek interim protection before the civil appellate court rather than continue duplicate criminal proceedings. Multiplicity of litigation was disapproved because the civil forum was available to protect possession and property. The proceeding under Section 145 of the Code was therefore quashed, along with the order attaching the property.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should continue when a civil suit concerning the same property, title, and possession is pending or has been adjudicated.

Analysis: A civil suit between the parties concerning the same property had already gone into the question of title and possession, and a decree had been passed. In such a situation, there was no justification for permitting a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The decree of the civil court was binding on the criminal court in a matter of this nature, and the parties were free to seek appropriate interim protection from the civil appellate court. Multiplicity of litigation was held to be undesirable where the civil forum was available to protect possession and property.

Conclusion: The criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code could not be continued, and the order initiating the proceeding and attaching the property was quashed in favour of the appellant.

---