Judgement DAS GUPTA, J. :- The proceedings under S. 145, Criminal P.C., which were drawn up on the application of the present petitioner were "dropped" on 23rd December 1949, on an application by the petitioner that there was no longer any likelihood of any apprehension of the breach of the peace over the possession of the property. The question then arose as to the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops which had been sold by the receiver. The learned Magistrate passed an order for payment of this money which amounted to almost Rs. 2,000 to the second party as he was of opinion that the documents produced before him showed that the second party had title to the crops. 2. An application against this order before the learned Sessions Judge was unsuccessful. 3. We are now asked to interfere with the order passed by learned Magistrate on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Obviously, unless he could be considered to have exercised jurisdiction under S. 517, Criminal P.C., the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order as regards the disposal of the sale proceeds after the proceedings had been dropped and he had not come to any conclusion as regards the party entitled to possession. 4. Whether such an order could be passed under S. 517, Criminal P.C., depends really on the answer to the question whether when the proceedings are terminated by an order of cancellation passed under sub-s. (5) of S. 145, Criminal P.C., it can be said that the enquiry in S. 145 proceedings is concluded. In a case which came up before this Court very many years ago, an order directing the first party to reap the crops after the proceedings had been dropped was claimed to have been passed under S. 517, Criminal P.C. This Court said, "If that be so, we have jurisdiction to interfere under S. 520 of the same Code" and the Court for reasons recorded cancelled the order passed. It will be noticed that the Court did not discuss or determine the question whether in fact such an order could be passed under S. 517 of the Code, but proceedings on the assumption that this was so, held that the Court could interfere under S. 520, Criminal P.C., and the order was passed. 5. It will be noticed that the Court did not discuss or determine the question whether in fact such an order could be passed under S. 517 of the Code, but proceedings on the assumption that this was so, held that the Court could interfere under S. 520, Criminal P.C., and the order was passed. 5. In my opinion, the cancellation of proceedings cannot be considered to amount to a conclusion of the enquiry. I think that the word concluded in S. 517, Criminal P.C., is used to mean conclusion after full hearing. We are fortified in this view by a decision of the Madras High Court in the casa of Narasayya v. Venkiah, 49 Mad 232 : (AIR (12) 1925 Mad 1252 : 27 Cr. LJ 95), where it was held that when a Magistrate has dropped a proceeding, he cannot pass any order in favour of either party as regards the disposal of the sale proceeds of the crops raised on the land in dispute but should keep the same in deposit pending orders of Civil Court. 6. I am, therefore, of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction. I would, therefore, set aside that order and direct that the money be kept in deposit till one of the parties has established his right by suitable proceedings in the Civil Court. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. LAHIRI, J. :- I agree. Rule made absolute.