Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.- The challenge under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for the short 'Cr.P.C.') is the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Tehri dated 1.10.2004 (annexure 6 to the petition) passed in criminal revision no. 19/2004 Heera Mani Dangwal v. State and others in which the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C and quashed the attachment order passed therein in consequence of the said order.

2. Undisputedly a police report was called for by the Executive Magistrate from the police station on the behast of the petitioner for the shop in dispute measuring 1300 square feet. The police submitted report on 1.4.2004 that there is a dispute regarding the question of possession of the disputed shop and there is apprehension of breach of peace amongst the parties. Thereafter preliminary order was passed and the parties were asked to submit their written statement. Pursuant to it the parties filed written statements. The petitioner alleged in his written statement that a civil suit had been filed with regard to the same property and the civil court had passed the status quo order with regard to the possession of the disputed property. On these proceedings learned Magistrate considering all the facts of the case and situation concluding that there is eminent and urgent matter of breach of peace the attachment order was passed on 22.4.2004. The parties were directed that till the right and claim of the parties arc not adjudicated by the competent court of law the property would remain attached. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of Executive Magistrate, the revision petition was preferred by the respondent no. 2 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri and the learned Sessions Judge quashed the attachment order and allowed the revision on the ground that the civil suit between the same parties in pending and the competent civil court in civil suit no. 21/04 has passed an interim order of status quo and as such the proceedigns under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C could not be initiated by the Executive Magistrate Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed before this court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether in the• facts and circumstances of the case a civil suit for injunction is pending before the competent forum i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Tehri the respondent was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under section 145 Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate was competent to initiate the proceedings and pass any order of appointment of receiver, attachment etc. Undisputedly in respect of the very property civil suit no. 21 of 2004 Heeramani Dangwal v. Suryamani Dangwal and 2 others (annexure 7 to the petition) for injunction was filed on 2.4.2004 on which an interim order of status quo was passed by the competent forum i.e. Civil Court. On the question whether the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated when a civil suit is pending with regard to the same property, thee was a controversy amongst different High Courts. Some of the High Courts were of the view that such proceedings should be maintained if the conditions under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were satisfied. Some of the High Courts were of the opinion that during the pendency of civil suit in respect of same subject matter the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. is ousted particularly when an injunction was granted by the civil court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1985, SC 472 has settled the controversy by observing that there is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that t