The legal principle established is that the order of attachment by the Executive Magistrate is not enforceable in the presence of an order of status quo by the Civil Court, and the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. must be dropped.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard further argument. This application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is disposed of in the following manner.

2. The Second Party members in Criminal Misc. Case No. 169 of 2001 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, have challenged the order dated 19.6.2001 of that Court on the ground of illegality and impropriety in that order. The first party members in that proceeding are the opposite party members 1 and 2 in this case. It appears from the impugned order that learned Executive Magistrate has passed order for attachment u/s 146, Cr.P.C. and has appointed the local R.I. as the receiver for the subject matter of dispute. It is not disputed at the Bar that Title Suit No. 26 of 2001 has been filed by the first party members, inter alia, claiming for the relief of injunction and in that suit, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC was dismissed by the trial Court after granting order of interim injunction and thereafter in Misc. Appeal No. 56 of 2001 the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur allowed the appeal by directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the subject matter of dispute.

3. In view of that admitted position on record, the second party members challenge the order of attachment u/s 146, Cr.P.C. In support of their rival contentions relating to maintainability of an order u/s 146, Cr.P.C. in a given situation, as noted above, both the parties have referred to the following decisions. Ram Sumer Purl Mahant v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1985 Supreme Court 472; Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others, ; Dharampal and others Vs. Smt. Ramshri and others, Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Anr., 2000 (II) OLR (SC) 59 Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh and Ors. 2002 C.L.J. 2017 Charan Naik and Ors. v. Kirtan Mohanty, 87 (1999) CLT 425 and Nabaghan Mohanty and two Ors. v. Dwarikanath Tripathy and Anr. 89 (2000) CLT 809

4. Referring to the above noted decisions and interpreting the same in accordance with their respective cases, both the parties advance argument, In that respect when the second party/petitioners argue that in view of existence of an order of status quo as per the decision of the Civil Court, the order of attachment by the Executive Magistrate is no more enforceable and maintainable and accordingly he distinguishes the case in which the Apex Court and this Court has stated about maintainability of a proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. notwithstanding pendency of civil dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first party/opposite parties advances the contention that notwithstanding pendency of a civil proceeding the impugned order of attachment is maintainable inasmuch as there has been no order of appointment of receiver and the order in the above noted Misc. Appeal is only for maintaining status quo.

5. All the above noted decisions from the Apex Court were duly referred to and discussed in the case of Charan Naik (supra). It emerges from the ratio propounded by the Apex Court and this Court that, where the Civil Court is in seisin of the dispute relating to claim of possession and has passed some order making any interim arrangement, then the proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and the arrangement by the Executive Magistrate must give way and oblige to the order of the Civil Court. There is no exception to the above ratio by expressing any contrary view in any of the cited cases (supra).

6. From the contention advanced by the first party/opposite parties, this Court feels that the first party has not understood the meaning of the term "status quo" which has been ordered to be maintained by the parties as per the order passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 56 of 2001. The term "status quo" is not a meaningless term as has been argued by the first party/ opposite party. That term means the prevailing or existing state of things on the given date. When the Court directed the parties to maintain "status quo", that means pa