JUDGMENT Asthana, J. - This is a revision application arising out of a case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant filed a complaint alleging that he was in possession of certain plots and the opposite parties threatened to disturb his possession and on account of it there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate sent for the police report and on receipt of the report attached the property in dispute. The police subsequently reported that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and this report was supported by the applicant. The learned Magistrate thereupon quashed the proceedings and ordered that the attached property was to be released in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached. Against this order the applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, who rejected it. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that after the learned Magistrate had come to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of breach of peace regarding the disputed property he had no further jurisdiction in the matter and he should not have passed any order for the release of the attached property, and in any case, he should not have directed the police to release the property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached. 3. The question for consideration is whether the order of the learned Magistrate is wrong and it should be interfered with in revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied in support of his contention on the following cases: 4. (Donepudi) Donepudi Narasayya and Another Vs. Chiguluri Venkiah and Others, AIR 1925 Mad 1252 . It was held in this case that where the Magistrate dropped the proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure because there was no apprehension of breach of peace, he had no further jurisdiction in the matter and was functus officio, and he could not, therefore, pass any order regarding the attached property and that the property was to remain attached till one of the parties to the case has got his right established to it by the Civil Court. There is one difficulty in this case. There is one difficulty in this case. When the entire proceedings have been quashed on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace then the attachment which was also a part of the proceedings will also stand quashed, and could not subsist. In the circumstances, the property could not remain under attachment after proceedings had been quashed and it is to be released in order to restore the parties to their status qua ante. The next case is Sheomangal Singh v. Thakurain Maharaj Kunwar 1948 A.W.R. (H.C.) 257. In this case it was held that movable property could not be attached u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and its release could not be ordered under Sec 145. It was further held that it could be done u/s 517, Cr.P.C. after the patties had been allowed to adduce their evidence in support of their respective claims. This decision does not lay down that where proceedings u/s 145 relating to immovable property have been quashed, no order for the release of the attached property could be passed. The other case is that of Raj Deo Singh v. Emperor 1948 A.W.R. (H.C.) 216. It was held in this case that where the proceedings u/s 145 had been dropped on the ground that there was no apprehension of the breach of peace, the Magistrate can order the release of the attached property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached in case there was nothing on the record to indicate this fact and by doing so he will be restoring the status quo ante. It was further held that in case there was anything on the record to indicate from whose possession the property was attached the proper order to pass was that the attachment should be lifted without saying anything in whose favour it was lifted. Another case is Dulla v. The State 1953 A.L.J. 314. This case too does not help the applicant. It only lays down where the proceedings have been quashed u/s 145 it is no longer open to the Magistrate to make an enquairy regarding the possession of the attached property. This case, however, does not lay down that the Magistrate should not order the release of the attached property. It has however, been laid down in the Mamidapalli Sattayya and Others Vs. This case, however, does not lay down that the Magistrate should not order the release of the attached property. It has however, been laid down in the Mamidapalli Sattayya and Others Vs. Sankara Kutumbara Rao and Others, AIR 1928 Mad 859 that where the proceedings u/s 145 have been quashed on the ground that there is no apprehension of the breach of peace, the proper order for the Magistrate is to direct the release of the attached property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached. This is exactly what the Magistrate has done in this case. 5. It further appears that after the order of the Magistrate the attached property has been released in favour of the opposite party. It cannot be re-attached now from his possession unless there is any fresh apprehension of breach of peace. 6. In view of the above decisions I am of opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has not directed the police to make an enquiry about the possession of the attached property. He has only directed the police to release the attached property in favour of the person from whose possession they took it. I see no reason to interfere in this revision. 7. The application is rejected.