S.M.F. Ali, C.J.
1. This is a reference recommending that the proceedings taken under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the Parties, may be quashed because the non-applicant has been put in possession by the Revenue Court in proceedings instituted under Section 56 of the Tenancy Act.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out that where a final order is either by a Revenue Court or by a Civil Court, it is the duty of the Criminal Court under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure to give effect to the said order, otherwise a strange position would develop so as to bring two inconsistent orders into existence. I think that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are extremely commendable and must prevail. The learned Sessions Judge has quoted, AIR 1955 Hyd 65 : 1955 Cri LJ 480 AIR 1925 Mad 1252 : (1926) 27 Cri LJ 95 and : AIR1958All803 in support of his view.
3. I have also gone through these authorities and I find that they fully support the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Furthermore it seems to me that the word 'dispute' in Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been used in its literal sense but in a legal sense. A dispute may come to an end in several ways. A dispute may be resolved by a settlement arrived at between the parties and if that happens, then the Magistrate is fully justified in dropping the proceeding because the dispute ceases to exist. Similarly a dispute may come to an end by a final adjudication given by a competent Court. It is well settled that it is the duty of the Criminal Court to give effect to the decree passed by the competent Courts and it cannot pass a decision in violation of such a decree.
4. In the instant case the order passed by the Revenue Court under Section 56 of the Tenancy Act reinstating the tenant on the ground that he was dispossessed by the landlord without any justification has been made final subject to revision under the Tenancy Act. No action in a civil or criminal Court is maintainable to question such an order, A Full Bench of this Court has recently held that an order under Section 56 of the Tenancy Act reinstating a tenant is absolutely final and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court In these circumstances, therefore when the Magistrate's attention was drawn tithe fact that the possession of the non-applicant was restored by the Revenue Court and he was put in possession of the land in question, then it was the duty of the trial Magistrate to have dropped the proceedings under Section 145(v) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the dispute having been finally decided, came to an end. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore rightly pointed out that there was no warrant for the learned Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even after a final order was passed by the revenue Court.
5. Mr. Latif however submitted that he has no remedy left at all. He cannot ask the Criminal Court to pass a final order in his favour nor can he approach a Civil Court. That however appears to be the legal position but the applicant before the Court below can certainly approach higher revenue authorities for revising the order of the Revenue Officer and they might take the ground that they were prosecuting the bona fide proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to condone the delay. If such a ground for condonation of delay is taken I am sure the revenue authorities will give due consideration to the same.
6. For the reasons given above, the reference is accepted and the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby quashed.