Short Note : 1. Bhajanlal and others filed a complaint under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against Matadin and others. On 6-9-1975 he declared that Matadin and others were in possession of the disputed land. Against that order a revision was filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, accepted the revision observing that the learned trial Magistrate had ignored the Judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 60-A of 1967 and the other documents produced before him by Bhajanlal and others. Held: The main ground for accepting the revision, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Was that when the Civil Court has decided the matter finally before the parties, that Judgment will be binding in proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. Suit No. 60-A of 1967 was filed by Matadin and others against Bhajanlal and others for declaration of title and possession of the disputed land. In that suit, the plea of Matadin and others, was that they are in continuous possession of disputed land for 20 years. and it has become adverse. He also took a defence that the predecessors-in-title of Bhajanlal and others had handed over possession of the disputed land after taking Rs. 500/- from them. The Civil Court dismissed the suit. Before this Court, it was said that there was an appeal file against this Judgment, while the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bhajanlal and others submitted that the appeal is also dismissed. From the Judgment in the suit, it is clear that Matadin and others failed to establish their plea of continuous possession which they alleged has become adverse. The application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was also rejected. Tile question of title was also decided against them. Proceedings under section 145 Cr. P.C. and an order under it is always subject to a declaration by a competent Court. Here in this case, the competent Civil Court has decided the matter against Matadin and others. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot stand in law and it is liable to be quashed Revision allowed.