JUDGMENT R.C. Deo Sharma, J. - Through this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners have prayed that the investigation in a case under Section 447/448 IPC being conducted by the police may be quashed and the property which has been seized and over which locks and seals have been put by the police may be released and put back into the possession of the petitioners. It will appear that a dispute of a civil nature regarding the title and possession over the property known as zilla Babuganj exists between the petitioners and Smt. Girja Devi. There had been some civil litigation about various properties including the land and building attached to this Zilla. It will appear that a first information report dated 3.9.1983 was lodge by Manager, Bhadri, whose name in the counter affidavit has been disclosed as Rudra Prasad Srivastava but does not appear from the copy of the F.I.R., Annexure 4. The allegations in this report were that Kr. Udai Singh and his men have surrounded the Zilla Babuganj. They are just about to trespass into the Zilla. Thus according to the Manager's contention, the building in question was in his possession while Kr. Udai Singh and his people were surrounding the building and were about to commit trespass by entering etc. The police, it appears, went into action immediately and put their own locks and seals over the doors and other property. The petitioners' contention is that they are in possession of this property and petitioner no. 1 has his telephone connection installed, for which Annexure 1, a certificate by the telephone authorities, has been filed. It is not necessary to go into greater details of the matter because the same can be disposed of on a preliminary point. The station Officer, P.S. Kunda has filed a counter affidavit. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is obvious that the action for attachment and seizure of the property is not backed by any specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, placed reliance on Section 102 Cr. P. C., but that section speaks about moveable property which has been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found in the . circumstances creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, placed reliance on Section 102 Cr. P. C., but that section speaks about moveable property which has been alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found in the . circumstances creating suspicion about the commission of an offence. It is difficult to conceive that immovable property would be found in such circumstances as to create suspicion of its having been stolen or with regard to which any offence has been committed. Subsection (3) of this section also , makes the position clear that it applies to moveable's only. Moreover, Section 145 Cr. P.C. which specifically deals with disputes relating to immovable property and Appears under the heading to that effect, gives adequate powers to the police and magistracy to take appropriate action, if a dispute relating to immovable property exists. A police officer has been given the power to the Executive Magistrate concerned and on his report the property can be attached or given in the custody of some proper person. It will appear that a report under section 145 Cr. P. C. was also made by the Station Officer, P.S. Kunda on 391983 itself. A prayer was made in this report itself that the property in question, namely, zilla Babuganj, may be attached. On this report notice were ordered to be issued by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5983. Annexure 6 to the petition will show that the petitioner Kr. Udai Singh had made a prayer before the S D.M., Kunda for the release of the property in his favour, saying that he was already in possession and his cattle were inside the Zilla This prayer was made on the assumption that the attachment had been ordered in proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 891983 contained at the end of Annexure 7 itself, observed that the property in question had not been sealed in connection with the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also ordered that the party should seek its remedy from a competent court. Annexure Al and A2 filed with the counter affidavit are applications of Kr. Udai Singh and Smt. Girja Devi, made to the Magistrate concerned, praying that the property in question may be released in their respective favour. Annexure Al and A2 filed with the counter affidavit are applications of Kr. Udai Singh and Smt. Girja Devi, made to the Magistrate concerned, praying that the property in question may be released in their respective favour. On both these applications an order was passed directing the Station Officer P.S. Kunda to submit his report by 1591983. Copy of the report submitted has not been brought on record by either party and it is not clear whether any orders have since been passed on the same regarding attachment of the property or otherwise. However, the learned Magistrate is already seized of the case and he can pass appropriate orders regarding attachment or Supurdagi of the property to some respectable person as he may, in the circumstances, consider proper. So far as the attachment or seizure of or putting seals over the property in question by the Station Officer, Kunda, on his own, during investigation of the case under section 447/448 IPC is concerned, there being no provision authorising him to do so, without the orders of any competent court, obviously, the action taken cannot be sustained. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that it was not a fit case in which investigation proceedings should be quashed. The contention is not without force. Although in appropriate cases the Court has power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash proceedings even during investigation, but in the instant case there is no reason why the proceedings of investigation should be quashed because an offence under section 447/448 IPC is a cognizable offence and the police is competent to investigate the matter in accordance with law. What is to be quashed is the action of the police in putting seals and seizing the property otherwise than in accordance with law or under the order of a competent court. 4. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed and while the investigation in the case under section 447/448 IPC may continue in accordance with law, the seizure of the property and putting of locks and seals thereon being contrary to law, the opposite parties are directed to remove the locks and seals and lift the seizure. It may be clarified that in case any apprehension of breach of the peace exists, it will be open to the opposite parties to take appropriate action according to law either under section 145 Cr. It may be clarified that in case any apprehension of breach of the peace exists, it will be open to the opposite parties to take appropriate action according to law either under section 145 Cr. P. C. or otherwise, as may be advised. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, for getting it served on the Opp. parties. (Petition allowed partly)