JUDGMENT : Anwar Ahmad, J. This application on behalf of the members of the second party to a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the ORDER :of a Magistrate of the first class at Dinapore dated the 18th October 1968, whereby he has declined to convert the proceeding into one under Section 145 of the Code. 2. The police, in its report dated the 12th February 1968, mentioned certain overt acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners against the opposite party and recommended that a proceeding under Section 107 be started against them. The learned Magistrate, by his ORDER :dated the 19th February 1968, started the proceeding. The petitioner filed an application on the 21st August 1968, praying that the proceeding, in which they had already appeared and filed their show-cause, be converted into one under Section 145 of the Code. The alternative prayer made in that application was that, if a proceeding under Section 107 was found to be more appropriate, such a proceeding be drawn up against both the parties. 3. The alternative prayer was not seriously pressed before me nor was it dealt with in the impugned ORDER :and, as such, it will not be proper for me to say anything on the point as to whether any proceeding under section should have been started against the opposite party also. The application filed by the petitioners on the 21st August, 1968 did not mention any overt act so far as the opposite party is concerned. If and when any such application is filed, it will be for the learned Magistrate to deal with that matter. 4. The refusal of the Magistrate to convert the proceeding into one under Section 145 cannot, however, be interfered with. The police report which forms the very basis of the initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 did not mention any specific immovable property which was the came of the disturbance. It was mainly based on the overt acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners against the opposite party. In the absence of a reference to any specific immovable property in the police report dated the 12th February 1968, no proceeding under Section 145 should be drawn up. It was mainly based on the overt acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners against the opposite party. In the absence of a reference to any specific immovable property in the police report dated the 12th February 1968, no proceeding under Section 145 should be drawn up. It is, no doubt, true that there was a reference to an earlier proceeding under Section 144 of the Code; but nothing was done by the petitioners to convert that proceeding into one under Section 145. The ORDER :passed by the learned Magistrate was, therefore, perfectly justified on the facts of the present case. So far as the point of law is concerned, it seems to be almost settled that, if a civil suit is pending disposal, the better choice for the Magistrate is always to start a proceeding under Section 107 in preference to a proceeding under Section 145. I should not be understood to mean that the pendency of a civil suit ousts the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to start a proceeding under Section 145; but it is clear that, if a civil suit is already pending, the better choice for the Magistrate is to start a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. I am fortified in this view of mine by a Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in (1) A.I.R. 1961 Rajasthan 216 (Tikuda V. State and others). The following lines of their Lordships decision may be usefully quoted :- "It may be observed that if a dispute about a certain immovable property is pending before a revenue or a civil court and if one of the parties to that suit moves a Magistrate to take proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the same immovable property which is involved in the suit, the Magistrate should not lightly proceed in the matter." In that case also, as in the instant case, the Magistrate had passed an ORDER :under Section 112 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. It was laid down by their Lordships :- “The Magistrate had passed an ORDER :under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the non-petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound to keep peace for one year. Under these circumstances, he should have proceeded to complete this inquiry as required by Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code. It was laid down by their Lordships :- “The Magistrate had passed an ORDER :under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the non-petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound to keep peace for one year. Under these circumstances, he should have proceeded to complete this inquiry as required by Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code. He should not have converted the proceedings from Section 107 to Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and attached the property simply because this suggestion was put forward by the opposite party.” 5. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.