The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 145 of the CrPC is not ousted by the pendency of a civil suit between the same parties about the same subject matter, and the Magistrate can attach the property in dispute despite an injunction order issued by the Civil Court, provided that the Magistrate exercises this jurisdiction with extreme caution and only when the Civil Court is not properly seized of the case.

K.S.TIWANA, J.

1. Mohinder Singh petitioner, on the one hand, and Dibagh Rai respondent, on the other are litigating in the Civil Court at Patiala about the possession of a Khola (dilapidated house) situated on the Press Road at Patiala. The Civil Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo during the pendency of the proceedings about the possession of this khola. The counsel for the parties are agreed that this order is still in force. During the pendency of this suit on 15-11-1971, the local police made a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patiala, for initiating proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. On this report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a notice to Mohinder Singh and Dilbagh Rai to file their respective claims about the actual possession on the kotha in his Court on 22-11-1971. On 1-2-1972 the police made another report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate requesting him for the attachment of the khola as there was imminent danger of the breach of the peace. The learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate agreed with the police, attached the khola, i.e. the subject-matter of the dispute and appointed Tahsildar Patiala to manage the Khola till the final decision of the proceedings by that Court.

2. Mohinder Singh petitioner filed revision petition against the order of attachment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Patiala, dated 1-2-1972, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he has filed the present criminal revision petition.

3. At the time of arguments before me sitting in Single Bench 6 cases decided by this Court were cited. These are: Criminal Revision 34 of 1971, Des Raj V/s. Sat Pal decided on 21-8-1972 : (reported in 1973 Cri LJ 1869 (Punj)) by P. S. Pattar J., Criminal Revision No. 33-R of 1973 Kura V/s. Angrez Singh decided on 30-5-1973 Reported in 1974 Chand LR (Cri) 331; by P. S. Pattar J., Criminal Misc. No. 262-M of 1975 Teja Singh v, Mohinder Singh decided on 13-5-1975 Reported in 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 466. by A. D. Koshal J., Criminal Misc. No. 2046-M of 1974; Pal Singh V/s. Joginder Singh decided on 8-11-1975 Reported in 1975 Pun LJ (Cri) 18. by B. S. Dhillon J., Criminal Misc. No. 2598-M and No. 2599-M of 1974, Ram Dhari V/s. The Sub.Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal decided on 24-1-1975 Reported in 1915 Punj LJ (Cri) 41. by Gumam Singh J. and Criminal Misc. No. 299-M of 1975 Mohd. Ismail V/s. State of Punjab decided on 8-4-19750 by M. R. Sharma, J. The view expressed in all these cases is that when the parties had gone to the Civil Court about the same subject-matter which is in dispute before a Criminal Court and the Civil Court issues injunction in favour of one of the parties or orders the maintenance of status quo nothing remains to be done by the Criminal Courts and that there remains no propriety or even scope for the invoking of the provisions of S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in such cases. Stating this principle the learned Judges sitting singly in all these cases quashed the proceedings under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, pending before the Magistrate.

4. On behalf of the respondent Supreme Court decision in Sajjan Singh V/s. Sajjan Singh Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1968 decided on 10-10-1969: (1970) 2 UJ (SC) 75, was cited in which the Supreme Court in spite of the order of the stay of dispossession in favour of one of the parties by the Civil Court, upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate attaching the property and appointing a receiver. M. R. Sharma J. following this judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Revision No. 88-R of 1973, Narsi Ram V/s. The State decided on 11th December, 1974 (Punj) observed.

"If a learned Executive Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, orders the attachment of the property, he does not pass any order contrary to the orders passed by the Civil Court regarding the maintenance