https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288473 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. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:50:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288473 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288473