JUDGMENT 1. - Jeewan Singh has filed this criminal revision under section 397, Cr.P.C. against the order of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 20.12.78 in Criminal Revision No. 12/75 allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order dated 20.12.78 passed by the S.D.M., Jhunjhunu on 10.2.75 2. The facts of this case as involved, and are of the required career. Party No. 1 is Raroeshwar Dayal, now deceased, represented by bis legal representatives before this Court by Mr. Tibrewal. Party No. 2 is Jeewan Singh, the petitioner before this Court, who was party No.2 in the lower court. The dispute relates to the property consisting of agricultural land of Thakur Takhat Singh. Rameshwar claims the property as one of the trustees of charitable trust, Malsisar known as Baghsingh Bhursingh Charitable Trust, Malsisar. Jeewan Singh claims the property by a separate will of Thakur Takhat Singh dated 1.5.70. 3. On 3.12.73, party No. 1 filed the application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. On 10.2.75, the S.D.M., after enquiry decided the case in favour of Jeewansingh Rameshwar filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The Sessions Judge remanded the case back for passing a fresh order, by order dated 16.1075. Jeewansingh filed a revision in the High Court on 13.9.78 held that the Sessions Judge should not have interfered and directed the Magistrate to decide the case on merits again. The Sessions Judge on 20.12.78 set aside the order of the S.D.M., Nawalgarh and declared possession of party No. 1. Hence, this revision. 4. The case was argued by Mr. Bhandari on merits, and a number of points were raised regarding the appreciation of the evidence, non-consideration of the evidence and wrong application of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All these allegations were controverted by Mr. Tibrewal. 5. When the case was being heard, Mr. Bhandari filed an affidavit of Jeewan Singh, according to which some subsequent development have taken place. The substance of affidavit is that the matter has been compromised by the Trust from which Rameshwar claimed his title, and on account of that compromise, the Ceiling Department of the Government Rajasthan has acquired 7 Bighas of land as surplus land from the disputed land. It was also averred that 80 Bighas of land has been disposed of after the compromise. 6. It was also averred that 80 Bighas of land has been disposed of after the compromise. 6. It was also pointed out that Shiv Ramnisingh and Bhawani Singh have entered the compromise on 13.3.73 due to which the amount of Rs. 14,500/- has been distributed between Jeewan Singh and Bhawani Singh and the Trust. 7. It was also alleged that the trust is no more interested in the litigation, and the trust has been dissolved. On the above issue Mr. Bhandari-submitted that now the situation having been changed and the possession having been given tothe Government, and the purchasers, there is neither any land left nor is there any apprehension of breach of the peace. The submission was that when there is no land in possession of his client, Jeewan Singh, the entire proceedings u/s 145, Cr.P.C should be quashed. 8. Mr. Tibrwal submits that he is not agreeable to the quashing of the entire proceedings, because so far as the declaration is concerned, that would always stand subject to a decision of a competent civil Court. 9. Having considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and looking to the chequered history if the case, I am of the opinion that since an order under Section 145, Cr.P.C. is only in the nature of a summary order subject to the decision of a competent civil court, this litigation should now be put to an end. On the petitioner Jeewan singhs own showing, no dispute remains because the Ceiling authorities have taken possession of part of the land, and the other part of the land is in possession of the purchasers. Jeewansingh, therefore, is not at all concerned with the dispute about possession now. So far as the question of title and the effect of the various compromises alleged to have been entered into is concerned, it would be a matter to be decided by a competent civil court as and when the same is agitated. The learned Sessions Judge has granted a declaration that party No. 1 was in possession on the date of drawing of preliminary order and two months earlier to it. This order is always subject to the decision of a competent Civil Court. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has granted a declaration that party No. 1 was in possession on the date of drawing of preliminary order and two months earlier to it. This order is always subject to the decision of a competent Civil Court. 10. The complex of the entire case would be changed, if the allegations of the petitioner are correct, namely, if the Government has taken possession of part of the land on account of Ceiling, and if any compromise has been entered into between the trust and the petitioner Jeewan Singh, and by virtue of that the land has been sold to the third party and possession has been given. These are matters on which I would not like to decide one way or the other, because in the absence of the legal representatives of deceased Ramesh war deceased them, it can always be a matter of enquiry and adjudication by a competent court. That apart, so far as the present revision application is concerned, as per the own version of the petitioner Jeewan Singh, now the matter is over so far as his possession is concerned. That being so, it would be an exercise of futility to deal with the evidence produced in the case and the various points raised by either of the parties. 11. The result of the above discussion is, that the revision application has become infructuous on account of the developments alleged by the petitioner according to which he himself admits that the possession has been taken by the Government partially and partially by other persons, of course, this would not prejudice the rights of the legal representatives of Rameshwar party No.l. It would always be open to the parties to get the question of title decided by a competent Civil Court. 12. With the above observations, the revision application is dismissed. *******