ORDER K.K. DUBE J.- 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, wherein he refused to interfere with the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Raigarh, in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to a conclusion that it was expedient in view of the emergent situation to pass an order of attachment to prevent a breach of the peace because of a dispute over the lands and crops. By this revision, the applicant seeks to challenge the orders of the Courts below on the ground that the jurisdiction under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been exercised improperly and illegally. The matter in dispute here is also the subject-matter of a civil litigation before a civil Court in which the questions of title and possession are being enquired into. It is, therefore contended that there is no necessity for the criminal Court to pass an order of attachment and secondly the exercise of such jurisdiction would be without jurisdiction. The applicant invokes the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure to set aside the Orders. 3. The short question involved before me is whether or not it was proper for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take recourse to proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed to attach the crops and land; when the dispute was before a civil Court and an interim order passed was subsisting. It is not disputed that the subject matter of the property is the same in the civil suit before the Civil Judge as to the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But before the consideration of the question on merits, it is necessary to decide whether the petition is tenable. 4. For a better appreciation of the situation, it is necessary to state some more facts The agricultural lands in dispute are situated in Raigarh and it is the bone of contention that at the relevant time the devolution of the lands was governed by the State wazibularz which provided that the property would devolve on the eldest male member of the family by survivorship and not by inheritance. Ratiram was elder to Paltan and the ancestral properties were in his name. Ratiram was elder to Paltan and the ancestral properties were in his name. After Ratiram's death, it is contended that the properties could not have been inherited by his widow Mst. Satyawati but devolved by survivorship on Paltan and his younger brother. After the death of Paltan, they came in the hands of Gajpati son of Paltan. Mst. Satyawati was claiming share in the property and, therefore, Gajpati filed a civil suit in the Court of First Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, being Civil Suit No.102-A/71, for a declaration and permanent injunction restraining Satyawati from interfering with the property. On 21-9-1971 an interim injunction was granted by the Court. By this interim injunction, the defendant was restrained from alienating the lands IInd from executing a sale deed of the property till the decision of the suit. It was observed by the learned Civil Judge that it was necessary to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff by maintaining status quo as otherwise he would be put to irreparable loss and that his possession over the lands would be disturbed. 5. Despite the injunction order, Mst. Satyawati by a transfer deed executed in favour of Sardar Uttamsingh, non-applicant in this revision sold the lands. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Gajpati, in his written statement clearly stated that he had filed a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and Mst. Shrimati wife of Paltan are the exclusive owners of the lands in dispute and that by an order of the First Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mst. Satyawati was restrained from alienating or executing a sale deed in favour of anybody. Sardar Uttamsingh, therefore, derived no title to the disputed property and has no locus standi to claim possession over the suit lands. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that unless by an order of attachment and placing the property under a receiver the parties were precluded from interfering with the property, there was a danger of a breach of the peace. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, passed the necessary order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was not disturbed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, passed the necessary order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was not disturbed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Against the order in revision passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gajpati has now filed this petition. 6. It would be clear from the above narration of fact that the Civil Judge is already seized of the matter and the questions of title and possession are to be decided by it. Apprehending irreparable loss to the plaintiff and on a consideration of balance of convenience the Civil Court passed the interim injunction restraining the defendant from executing the sale deed of the property. The likelihood of a breach of the peace is sufficient to give the Magistrate jurisdiction to step in and take such action as would be expedient to prevent the threatened breach of the peace. The proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to prevent a breach of public peace and to force the parties to determine the dispute by a Civil Court. The proceedings seek to work out an interim arrangement which eventually is to give place to the decision by the Civil Court. When the parties have already gone to the Civil Court and the Civil Court is already seized of the matter, the ultimate goal of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is already reached and it would be useless to beat the anvil to forge the very same thing. It was not intended to run a parellel proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What, however, remained a matter of concern was the maintenance of public peace and this could be achieved by taking recourse to proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and permit the dispute to be decided by a Civil Court. 7. Now, under the new Code, the applicant having availed of the remedy of revision, it was not competent, in the circumstances of the case, again to agitate the same thing in a second revision before the High Court this Court can, however, in appropriate cases, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, examine the matter to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Improper exercise of power under any of the provisions of the Code or where any provision has been invoked under a misapprehension would be such abuse as would require it to be struck down under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, see no impediment in taking notice of the improper orders by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. 8. I accordingly set aside the two orders dated 15-11-1972 and 23-4-1973. The matter will go before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate now and if he is satisfied that there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace, would proceed to deal with it as provided under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.