JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against an order u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure passed by a First Class Magistrate of Kamakhyanagar declaring the first party (opposite party) to be entitled to possession of the disputed property until eviction in due course of law. 2. The disputed property which consists of 13.42 acres in mouza Budhibil and 18.31 acres in mouza Karagola in Kamakhyanagar sub-division is the subject matter of a title suit (Title Suit No. 24 of 1956) pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal between Kapila Sahu and others on one side and Purna Chandra Sahu and others on the other. After the passing of the preliminary decree in that suit Petitioner Dhaneswar Singh was appointed by the court as receiver on 1-12-1959 and directed to take possession of the property. When the receiver went to take actual possession and to harvest the crops, he found that the first party Bandia Singh had taken away most of the bundles of paddy saying that he bad grown the crops as Bhagchasi of Purna Chandra Sahu and others. After some miscellaneous orders Bandia Singh himself filed apparition before the learned Subordinate Judge on 3-9-1960 saying that he was the Bhagchasi of the land under Purna Chandra Sahu and others for the last 25 years and that his possession might not be disturbed. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 24-9-1960 however rejected this petition holding that the receiver obtained actual possession of the land and that Bandia Singh was dispossessed. He however directed Bandia Singh to file a suit for recovery of his title in an appropriate court after impleading the receiver as a party. He thought that in a summary proceeding it was not possible for him to decide whether Bandia Singh was a Bhagchasi and what his status was in respect of the disputed land. Bandia Singh did not challenge this order of the learned Subordinate Judge by way of revision in the High Court. Subsequently however he filed a petition u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure against the receiver and other persons on 18-11-1960. Admittedly the consent of the learned Subordinate Judge was not taken to implead the receiver as a party in that proceeding u/s 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate on 20-12-1960 dropped the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently however he filed a petition u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure against the receiver and other persons on 18-11-1960. Admittedly the consent of the learned Subordinate Judge was not taken to implead the receiver as a party in that proceeding u/s 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate on 20-12-1960 dropped the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. But when a revision was taken to the High Court (Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1961), a Single Judge of this Court held that the proceeding should not have been dropped and should have been continued and disposed of in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate therefore thought that by virtue of this order of the High Court he should continue the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure and after examining the affidavits filed by both sides he disagreed with the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge and held that Bandia Singh was in actual possession. Hence h declared .possession in his favour. 3. The main point urged by Mr. R. Mohanty for the receiver is that when the civil court had already taken seisin of the dispute between the main parties and had placed the properties in possession of the receiver and had also rejected the prayer of Bandia Singh for release of the properties in his name, that criminal court should not have initiated a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure at all, and that Bandia Singh should have been directed to establish his title, if any, before the appropriate court, impleading the receiver as a party. 4. As is well known, a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is of a summary nature intended to maintain peace till the title of the respective claimants is adjudged by a competent court. Here when the competent court, namely, the Subordinate Judge is already in seisin of the entitle dispute and has also placed the receiver in actual possession of the property, the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was not at all justified. If any body attempted to disturb the possession of the receiver and thereby committed a breach of peace, remedy should be sought for before the learned Subordinate Judge by way of contempt or other proceeding. If any body attempted to disturb the possession of the receiver and thereby committed a breach of peace, remedy should be sought for before the learned Subordinate Judge by way of contempt or other proceeding. The criminal court should not have passed final orders in the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure when the same property had been placed with the receiver by a competent civil court. The learned Subordinate Judge himself granted permission to Bandia Singh to implead the receiver as a party for declaration of his title, and so long as the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 24-9-1960 is not reversed or modified by a superior court, Bandia Singh is bound by the same. 5. It is true that the learned Magistrate was somewhat misled, by the order passed by the single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1961. But it appears that there the main question of jurisdiction as to whether the proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure should continue when the property is already in charge of a receiver, was not fully discussed and no decision was given by the learned Judge. The simple question before him was whether once a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated (assuming that the proceeding was initiated properly) it could be dropped unless there was no further apprehension of breach of the peace. Want of jurisdiction of the magistrate to initiate the proceeding was not canvassed before the learned Judge. I must therefore hold that the entire proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived and as pointed out in ILR Cal 593 a receiver appointed by the civil court cannot be made a party in a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure without the sanction of the Court. 6. Mr. Misra for Bandia Singh, opposite party, however urged relying on some observations in 9 Indian Cases 1009 that if the receiver had no objection Bandia Singh might continue to remain in possession as a Bhagchasi of the disputed property inasmuch as the receiver himself was not in actual cultivating possession. This is however a matter to be considered by the receiver in the first instance or by the Subordinate Judge if necessary and this Court cannot pass any direction in this criminal revision. This is however a matter to be considered by the receiver in the first instance or by the Subordinate Judge if necessary and this Court cannot pass any direction in this criminal revision. It is open to the opposite party to apply to the receiver or the Subordinate Judge, if so advised for being made a Bhagchasi during the next agricultural season. 7. For these reasons, the entire proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure is quashed and the order passed in favour of the second party is set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed