Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorary seeking quashing of the order dated 22.7.2009 and 14.6.2011 passed by the City Magistrate, Aligarh in Case No. 9 of 2008 (State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Kanti Devi) under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2009 (Nalini Kant Vs. State of U.P. And others), respectively.

2. The contentions are that a registered agreement of sale was executed by respondent no. 4 Kunwar Mohd. Abdul Bashir Khan in favour of petitioner Nalini Kant on 8.10.2003 and possession was handed over to the petitioner over the disputed property, whereafter the petitioner started sowing crops in the said plot. According to the said registered agreement, 7.10.2004 was fixed as the date for execution of sale deed. Thereafter, an application dated 5.10.2004 was sent by him to the Sub-registrar, Dibai, Bulandshahar but when the sale deed was executed he filed a Civil Suit No. 493 of 2007 (Nalini Kant Vs Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Basheer Khan and another) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahar registered as OS No. 493 of 2007 ( Sri Nalini Kant Vs Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Basheer Khan @ Abdul Washi Khan) for specific performance of contract. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 executed the sale deed of the said land in favour of respondent no. 2, Kanti Devi while the proceedings in the suit for specific performanc were still pending. Since the time of taking over the possession the petitioner was continuing in peaceful possession of the disputed land, but respondent no. 2 tried to dis-possess her and take possession herself but could not succeed. An application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings was moved by respondent no. 2, whereon a report was called for from the police which was submitted on 5.8.2008. After consideration of the said report, notice under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. was issued on 29.9.2008 but without waiting for the reply as well as effecting service upon the petitioner, the attachment order has been passed on 29.9.2008 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C., despite the fact that there was no urgency or emergency, particularly when there was no intervening event for initiation of proceedings under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 29.9.2008, a criminal revision 396 of 2008 (Nalini Kant Vs. State of U.P.) was preferred, which was allowed vide order dated 17.4.2009, in which it was recorded that the proceedings initiated under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. as well as its consequential order passed by the court below were illegal and erroneous. The suit with regard to the same property was pending before the Civil Court, Bulandshahar and there was no possibility of any dispute or probability of breach of peace. Thereafter, against the said order dated 17.4.2009, respondent no. 2 had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7752 of 2009 (Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others), in which High Court directed the trial court to decide the proceedings under 145 Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 days and further directed to arrange for the custody or otherwise of the crop standing on the disputed plot. Although, the view of High Court with regard to custody of the standing crop was a temporary arrangement but the learned Magistrate mis-construed the direction and erroneously attached the property and appointed a receiver over the disputed property on 22.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2009 (Nalini Kant Vs. State of U.P. And others) was preferred which was dismissed vide order dated 14.6.2011. It is further mentioned that OS No. 1016 of 2016 was filed by Kunwar Abdul Bashir Khan for cancellation of agreement of sale on 8.12.2003, which was dismissed in default for want of prosecution and the same has not been restored till date. The revisional court has o