' This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by Haji Dur Muhammad praying that the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Pending in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate be quashed being illegal as learned Magistrate had wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to proceed with the case which in fact did not vest in him because he omitted to pass an order as contemplated by subsection (1) of section 145, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts are that respondent executed an agreement to sell his land to Dur Muhammad petitioner and 2 others in the year 1980. As the differences arose between the parties the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent for specific performance of the agreement. The respondent appeared in Court and having received the total sale price before the Senior Civil Judge admitted the transfer of possession of the land to the petitioner and conceded the suit which accordingly was decreed. Subsequently the petitioner filed a declaratory suit on 12th July,1982 claiming to be the owner in possession of the disputed land and obtained temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession which was confirmed on 31st July,1982.
' It so happened that the local police, apprehending immediate breach of peace between the parties over the possession of the land in dispute, had sent a Kalandara to the Illaqa Magistrate to take necessary action under section 145, Cr.P.C. Whereupon the learned Magistrate vide order dated 14th July,1982 summoned the parties for 18th July,1982. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the instant quashment petition in this Court on 27th August,1982 during long vacations and also prayed that the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Be stayed meanwhile. It came up for hearing on 28th August,1982 but stay was not granted for it was found that the matter did not involve any urgency.
3. It transpires from the record that after the petitioner's application for stay was declined by the High Court on 28th August,1982 he filed a revision petition under section 439-A. Cr.P.C. Before the Sessions Judge on 5th September,1982 challenging the legality of the Magistrate's order, dated 14th July,1982 summoning the parties in 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings without disclosing to the Sessions Judge that the petitioner had already approached the High Court regarding the same matter. By filing this quashment petition. The learned Sessions Judge issued notice to the other party and stayed proceedings before the Magistrats and summoned the record for 27th September,1982. The other party having come to know of the stay order, made an application to the Sessions Judge seeking its vacation whereupon the hearing of the revision petition was accelerated and fixed for 22nd September,1982.
4. It is pertinent to note here, that learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Saghir Ahmad Advocate, who is also counsel in the aforesaid revision petition before Sessions Judge appeared in the instant quashment petition before me on 13th September,1982 and argued the case without disclosing that the impugned proceedings have also been challenged before the Sessions Judge, Mu!Tan in revision and has obtained a stay order and that the revision has been fixed for final hearing on 22nd September,1982. Being unaware of this development I admitted this petition to regular hearing and directed the Magistrate not to pass final order in 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings till the decision of this petition.
5. On 22nd September,1982 learned Sessions Judge after hearing parties dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner observing that "since the matter has already reached the stage of final arguments so the matter of prejudice, if any, may be raised before the learned lower Court and the proceedings cannot be set aside at naught at this stage by accepting the revision petition". He then directed the parties to appear before the Magistrate on 27th September, 1982. It is amazing that Mr. Saghir Ahmad Advocate did not inform the Sessions Judge on 22nd September,1982 even, about this Court's order, dated 13th September,1982 passed in this quashment petition, I believe that due to concealment of this order, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hear and dispose of the revision petition on 22nd September, 1982.
6. The proper course for the learned counsel for the petitioner was to have this petition withdrawn on 13th September,1982 when the revision petition touching the same matter had been admitted for hearing by the Sessions Judge on 5th September,1982 and the stay of the proceedings before the Magistrate had also been ordered. But he did not do so, rather he chose to prosecute the quashment proceedings before this Court on 13th September,1982 without disclosing about the proceedings before the Session's Court. On this day I admitted this petition to regular hearing and directed the Magistrate not to pass final order in 145, Cr.P.C. Proceedings .Till decision of the petition by the High Court. Obviously the petitioner has been pursuing the same matter before two different forums at one and the same time perhaps with the hope that if he would loose before one Court, he might succeed before the other.
7. From the above narration it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner in the instant proceedings has been persuing dual proceedings deliberately concealing what was happening in one Court from the other Court, which is not permissible under the law.
8. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 14th July,1982 has already been considered on revisional side by the learned Sessions Judge in the order, dated 22nd September, 1982 which I am afraid cannot be reconsidered under inherent discretionary powers provided in S.561-A. Cr.P.C. By this Court, which are exercised in matters of extraordinary and exceptional nature. In this case the conduct of the petitioner as well as of his counsel was not proper. They have not approached this Court with clean hands because they deliberately did not disclose before this Court that the impugned proceedings were also challenged by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, who had taken congnizance of the matter simultaneous to the quashment proceedings pending in this Court. I, therefore, refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in their favour.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
9. Before I part with this judgment, I may express my strong dis- approval of the improper conduct of Mr.Saghir Ahmad Advocate in these proceedings. I would have proceeded against him for professional misconduct, but for his being a young lawyer, I refrain from doing so and warn him to be careful in future.