K. K. ADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Londi and to set aside the order dated 20-5-1982 (confirming the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate) passed in Criminal Revision No. 23of 1981. ( 2 ) THE proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were initiated, at the instance of respondent No. 1, against the applicants, by an application dated 20-3-1980 and upon a police report furnishing information that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace in respect of the lands (which are subject-matter of a civil litigation between the parties) and acting on the information, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after giving an opportunity, to the parties and upon material before him, passed a preliminary order on 22-3-1980. The property including the crop was attached and given on supardnama to one Ayodhya Prasad. ( 3 ) BEFORE the final order could be passed, respondent No. 1 moved an application purported to be under Section 145 (5) read with Section 146 (1) of the Code stating inter alia that in view of the pendency of the suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction instituted by respondent No. 1 against the applicants, being the Civil Suit No. 35-A/78 and in view of the attachment of the property under Section 146 (1) of the Code, there being no breach of peace, prayed for staying further proceedings pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate until the final decision of the suit. Acting on this application, the learned Magistrate instead of proceeding further, passed the order dated 15-4-1981, staying further proceedings. The applicants being aggrieved by this order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate challenged the same in the revision before the Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, who by the impugned order dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Londi. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently contended that the respondent No. 1 having failed to obtain order of temporary injunction in Civil Suit No. 35-A/78 with mala fide intention and suppression of the fact of the civil litigation, preferred an application under Section 145 of the Code. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant vehemently contended that the respondent No. 1 having failed to obtain order of temporary injunction in Civil Suit No. 35-A/78 with mala fide intention and suppression of the fact of the civil litigation, preferred an application under Section 145 of the Code. It was further contended that even on his showing there being no breach of peace, the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate deserves to be quashed. It was also submitted that the order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate was non- speaking and without any reasons and at any rate, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate could not have acted on the application moved by respondent No. 1 arid stayed the proceedings. The order in revision was also attacked on various grounds. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the contrary submitted that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 (5) of the Code and that in view of the civil suit for determining title, the only course open to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was to stay the proceedings before him in-the absence of any breach of peace. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. It is not disputed before me that in the civil suit institute by respondent No. 1 for declaration of title and permanent injunction an application moved by respondent No. 1 for temporary injunction restraining the applicants from disturbing possession was dismissed by the civil court on 5-1-1979. Thereafter, for a period of almost 14 months, there was no apprehension of breach of peace. All of a sudden, on an application, moved by respondent No. 1 dated 20-3-1980, proceedings were initiated and preliminary order and order of attachment were passed on 22-3-1980. It further appears from the order dated 15-4-1981 that respondent No. 1 did not attend the proceedings before the Subdivisional Magistrate on a number of dates on which the matter was fixed. It also appears that application was moved for staying further proceedings. The application dated 20-3-1980 did not disclose pendency of civil suit instituted by respondent No. 1 regarding declaration of title nor did it disclose the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction. It also appears that application was moved for staying further proceedings. The application dated 20-3-1980 did not disclose pendency of civil suit instituted by respondent No. 1 regarding declaration of title nor did it disclose the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction. ( 6 ) THE proceedings under Section 145 of the Code are intended to prevent breach of peace and the order of attachment could be passed, if the matter is: (i) one of emergency, or (ii) if none of the parties was then in possession as is referred to in Section 145; or (iii) if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the party was then in such possession of the subject-matter of dispute. Such attachment is continued until a competent court determines he rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to the possession. The Magistrate is entitled to withdraw the attachment of any time, if he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of breach of peace with respect to the subject-matter of dispute. ( 7 ) IN my opinion merely because an order under Section 146 (1) of the Code has been passed, the jurisdiction to continue with the enquiry under Section 145 is not taken away. The question of staying the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code would arise only when conditions enumerated under section 145 (5) of the Code are satisfied and they are independent of the provisions of sections 146 (1 ). The proceedings under section 145 of the Code have to be stayed when it is shown by the party to the proceedings or any person interested therein that no dispute existst or has existed. The party to the proceedings or the person interested cannot take the plea that in view of the attachment under Section 146 of the Code, there exists no dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace or that a civil litigation as regards the title is instituted and pending. Non-existence of dispute has to be independent of the order of attachment under section 146 (1) of the Code. It is only then the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code can be stayed. Non-existence of dispute has to be independent of the order of attachment under section 146 (1) of the Code. It is only then the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code can be stayed. Mere institution of the suit would also be insufficient ground to stay the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code unless an order of temporary injunction is obtained in the meanwhile from the competent civil court. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. ( 8 ) THE only question remains is whether the matter should be remitted back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to find out the person in possession of the disputed property under Section 145 (4) of the Code or in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code be quashed. There is no dispute that the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the respondent No. 1 plaintiff in the civil quit against the applicants was rejected on 5-1-1979 which prima facie shows possession of the applicants. There is no material on record that the respondent No. 1 came in possession of the disputed property thereafter. There is also no material on record to show that there was any breach of peace during the period 5-1-1979 till the application dated 20-3-1980 was, moved by respondent No. 1. Another fact to be taken into consideration is the absence of averments as regards the pendency of civil suit involving the disputed property between the parties interested. It appears that respondent No. 1 having obtained the order of attachment lost interest, and therefore, remained absent thereafter till the application was moved for staying the proceedings having attained the object. In my opinion, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose wm be served by remitting the mate back or by continuing the proceedings. The parties are already before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for determination of the question of title. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, the proceedings under section 145 of the Code are quashed. Consequently, the order dated 20-5-982 passed in the criminal revision is set aside. The parties are already before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for determination of the question of title. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, the proceedings under section 145 of the Code are quashed. Consequently, the order dated 20-5-982 passed in the criminal revision is set aside. It is, however, mentioned that should there be apprehension of any breach of peace, the authorities can resort to the recorse provided under Section 107 of the Code and permit the dispute to be decided by civil court. ( 10 ) THE revision succeeds and is allowed as indicated above. .