JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 17.11.2004 and 13.12.2004 under Annexures-1 and 10 respectively, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Niali in Criminal Misc. Case No.181 of 2004 initiating a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. restraining the petitioners and opposite parties from entering into the dis¬puted land and appointing the Revenue Inspector, Sadar, Niali as receiver in respect of the crops standing on the disputed land.

2. The Officer-in-charge, Niali Police Station submitted a report that the opposite party No.1 first party in one hand and the petitioners and opp.parties 2 to 5 on the other are trying to reap the paddy crops standing on plot Nos.3203, 3210, 3211, 3214, 3215, 3258, 3259, 3260, 3291 and 440 of Khata No. 105 of mouza-Tolagopinathpur under Niali Police Station creating a volatile situation. In the report he suggested that in order to avid clash between the parties and to avoid any breach of peace in the locality a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. be initiated.

Considering the aforesaid report of the O.I.C., Niali Police Station and the surrounding circumstances, the Executive Magis¬trate, Niali vide order dated 17.11.2004 drew up a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and restrained the parties from enter¬ing into the disputed land until further orders. Further, in order to protect the standing crops over the disputed land, he appointed the Revenue Inspector, Sadar, Niali as receiver and directed him to harvest the standing crops and to meet the ex¬penses of such harvest from the sale proceeds of the harvested crops. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the above said orders of the learned Executive Magis¬trate.

3. The claim of the 1st party opposite party No.1 is that he is all along in possession of the disputed land and he had raised the crops in that land in the year, 2004. According to opposite party No.1 the sale deed basing on which the petitioner and opposite party Nos.2 to 5 are claiming title over the disput¬ed land is a fake and invalid one and convey no right, title to the petitioner and opposite party Nos.2 to 5.

4. The plea of the 2nd party members is that the disputed land was purchased by them in the year 1982 and they are in pos¬session of the same ever since and accordingly, R.O.R. has also been prepared in their names for the disputed land. It was also claimed by the 2nd party members that Civil Suit is pending between the parties for the disputed land and in that suit the prayer for injunction of the 1st party-opp.party has been reject¬ed by the Court and so a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated and the order of attachment of the crops standing thereon cannot be passed.

5. Mr. A. R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during pendency of the civil suit between the parties for the disputed land, initiation of the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. is barred under the law. He cited the case of S. Prabhjeet Singh Johar v. Harjeet Singh and others, 2002(9) SBR 232 in support of his contention.

6. Repudiating the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G.C. Das, learned counsel ap¬pearing for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no legal bar for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. simply because civil suit for the disputed property is pending between the parties. According to him, if civil Court has not appointed any receiver or has not passed any order of injunction, then the Executive Magistrate can initiate a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C., as otherwise there would be a vacuum and peace and tranquillity will be disturbed. In support of his con¬tention, he relied on the case of Mando Kumbharuni v. Dutia Rana and others, 69(1990) C.L.T. 274, Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. The State and another, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1436 and Charan Naik and others v. Kirtan Mohanty, 87 (1999) C