JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bolangir recommending the quashing of a preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure drawn up by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate, First Class, Sonepur on 30-111968 in Criminal Case No. 117 of 1968. As it appears, the second party was the decree-holder and the first party the judgment-debtor in a civil action. In the civil Court a decree was obtained, execution was levied (Execution Case No. 6 of 1963) and ultimately delivery of possession of the disputed properties was taken. A part of the decretal dues still remains unsatisfied and the execution proceeding is still continuing in which the decree-bolder second party has taken action to proceed against the person of the judgment-debtor. In the said proceeding an affidavit was filed by the first party judgment debtor on 9-3-1968 wherein there was an admission that the lands of the judgment-debtor which had been sold in Court auction had been purchased by the decree-holder and he had taken over possession. 2. An application u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the learned Magistrate. In the said application the first party did not disclose that there had been a civil proceeding and in the execution case delivery of possession of the disputed properties had been taken through Court by the decree holder second party. The learned Magistrate ultimately by his order dated 30-11-1968 converted the proceeding into one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and drew up the impugned preliminary order. 3. As soon as the preliminary order was drawn up and the lands were directed to be attached, an application u/s 435, Code of Criminal Procedure was made before the learned Sessions Judge. He, after hearing the parties, has made this reference u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court. 4. Certain documents were received by the learned Sessions Judge and he has utili sed the contents of these documents for drawing up his recommendation to this Court for quashing the preliminary order. 5. Mr. Mohanty contends that the learned Sessions Judge should not have received these documents directly in his Court in the revision proceeding and on an appreciation of these documents should not have made the reference in question. It is quite possible that there may be some force in Mr. 5. Mr. Mohanty contends that the learned Sessions Judge should not have received these documents directly in his Court in the revision proceeding and on an appreciation of these documents should not have made the reference in question. It is quite possible that there may be some force in Mr. Mohanty's contention and the learned Sessions Judge possibly has not acted correctly in making the reference in this case. Without deciding the objection raised by Mr. Mohanty, T proceed to exercise jurisdiction u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure since the matter has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Sessions Judge. This matter will be treated as a revision. 6. From the records it transpires that in 1965 delivery of possession was effected of the very properties and the second party obtained possession through Court. There is an affidavit of the first party judgment-debtor in 1968 that the second party decree-holder is in possession of these properties. As it appears after the litigation in the civil Court was lost, the judgment-debtor has come to the criminal Court to initiate a further proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure to dispute the possession of the decree-holder. Law seems to be clear that once rights have been worked out in the civil Court between the parties, the process of the criminal Court should work to protect such rights and there should be no fresh investigation into possession of such properties, possession of which has been confirmed by the civil Court. If any authority for the proposition is necessary, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Banamali Mohapatra Vs. Bajra Nahak and Others. Chief Justice Narasimham referred to a number of cases, particularly the case reported in Rajendra Narayan Bhanja Deo Vs. Cahudhuri Chintamani Mahapatra. I find, in similar circumstances Courts have taken the view that instead of proceeding to re-enquire about possession of the parties u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in case circumstances need any proceeding to protect the rightful owner, steps should be taken u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure to bind down the party who creates mischief or difficulties in possession of the rightful owner. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that there was no justification to entertain the application u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure or to convert it into 80 proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and direct attachment of the lands. The possession through civil Court is recent and in 80 proceeding interprets. In the circumstances I direct that the preliminary order dated 30-11-1968 be quashed. 7. It is open to the learned Magistrate, in case he thinks necessary, to take appropriate action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain the peace in the locality. If the first party judgment-debtor is in a position to satisfy, the learned Magistrate that there is dispute about possession over certain properties which were not covered by the delivery of possession through the Civil Court, it would be open to the learned Magistrate to start proper proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference is discharged. The revision is allowed and the preliminary order is quashed. Final Result : Allowed