When a civil litigation is pending for the same property wherein the question of possession is involved and the parties are in position to approach the civil Court for interim order, such as, injunction or appointment of receiver; adequate protection of the properly during pendency of the dispute, there is no justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C.

This criminal revision has been directed against (he-order dated 19-8-1999 passed by the Illrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in criminal revision No. 5 ()h of 1999 (Smt. Jamuni and others. Laxmi Kuni and another), allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 29-4-1999 made by the Executive Magistrate under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C.

2. With the consent of the parties counsel, the revision is heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage.

3, The briefly stated facts giving rise to the present revision are that one Smi. Gangai who was the real sister of Jamuni, the opposite party No. 1, executed a sale-deed on 1-5-1971 transferring (he land in dispute in favour of Sim. Jamuni. On the application of Smt. Jamuni, The revenue records were corrected aivj ner name was entered as Bhumidhar in piace of. Smi. Gangai Devi. The present revisionist. Laxim Kant Dubey and Onkar Nath Dubey are the sons of Smi. Ganpai. They filed a suit No. 1 26 of 1999 on 27- 1-1999 for cancellation of the sale-deed ex ecuted about 29 years ago. Laser on, on 15-3-1999 they moved an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. supported by an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad. On being satisfied that there exists a dispute be tween the parties, likely to cause breach of peace concerning the agricultural land, the Executive Magistrate made a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. On the same day he also made an order of attachment under

Section, 146 (1), (Jr. P. C. directing the S. O. concerned to give the land in dispute in Supurdagi of some re spectable person.

4. Against the order of attachment made under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C, Smt. Jamuni, the present opposite party No. 1 filed a criminal revision, which ultimately came up for disposal before the 11 Ird Addl. Sessions Judge. The revisional Court al lowed the revision on the ground that a civil suit has already been filed and is pend ing between the parties, in respect with the property. which is the subject-matter in the proceedings under Section/145, Cr. P. C. , the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are, therefore, without jurisdiction. The revisional Court quashed the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and also set aside the order made under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. directing the delivery of possession to the revisionist, Smt. Jamuni in view of the report sub mitted by the police of the police station concerned. Hence, the revision by the present revisionists.

; 5. Sri Vijay Kant Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the revisionists contends that the civil suit between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter pending in the civil Court, is not a bar to the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. A reference to the ratio Laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Sachdeya v. The State and another, AIR 1994 SC1436, has been made wherein it is held that when the claim or title are not in dispute and the parties on their own showing are co- owners and there is no partition, one cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and ask the other party to act in accordance with law. Where the dispute is not on the right to possession but on the question of possession, the Magistrate is--empowered-to take cog nizance under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Janjir Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 1997 (35) ACC150. The ratio Laid down by this Court in this case does not apply to the set of facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. On the other hand, Sri B. N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the con testing opposite party No. 1 relied on the decision in the case of Shashi Kant v. The XII Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others, 1994 (31) ACC 656, and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of U. P. , 1985 (22) ACC 45 (SC), and urged that there was no justification to make an o