JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - Vijai Bahadur Singh filed this petition under Section 482, Cr P.C., for quashing the judgment and order dated November 12, 1984, passed by the S.D.M Hardoi, and the judgment and order dated December 13, 1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi. 2. The dispute relates to shops, situated towards the south of Lucknow Hardoi Road, at Chand Behta, in front of petrol pump known as Atul Automobiles. 3. The opposite party No. 1 Smt. Usha Rani and her husband the opposite party No. 2 Om Prakash Gupta moved an application on October 7, 1983 against the petitioner Vijai Bahadur Singh and one Parmeshwar Singh for drawing proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. The S.D.M. Hardoi, called for the police report. The police authorities gave their report dated October 13, 1983 to the effect that Ramphal has been a tenant and there has been an apprehension of breach of peace. The S.D.M. passed the preliminary order on October 14, 1983 requiring the petitioner and Parmeshwar Singh to file objections by October 22, 1983. As observed by the Magistrate in bis order, he made a spot inspection on October 10, 1983 and found the petitioner to be in possession and also that the applicants Smt. Usha Rani and another were dispossessed a few days ago. He further observed in bis spot inspection note that there appeared no apprehension of immediate breach of peace. 4. The opposite parties Smt. Usha Rani and Om Prakash Gupta filed their objections in the proceedings oo October 28, 1983 vide Annexure 3 wherein they claimed that not only Ramphal has been a tenant of the disputed property but one Gajraj Prasad (opposite party No. 3) has also been its tenant. They further pleaded in their objections that an effort was being made to dispossess them as the articles of opposite party No. 3 Gajraj Prasad were thrown away on October 18, 1983. 5. The parties led evidence is support of their respective contentions. The S.D.M. passed the judgment dated November 12, 1984 to the effect that the opposite party No. 3, Gajraj Prasad, was in possession of the disputed premises within two months prior to the passing of the preliminary order and that he was unlawfully disposed by the petitioner Vijai Bahadur Singh. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1984 which was dismissed on December 13, 1984. 6. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 127 of 1984 which was dismissed on December 13, 1984. 6. The petitioner claimed that the police report has been to the effect that Ramphal was in possession on October 13, 1983 and the Magistrate in his spot inspection found on October 19, 1983 that the petitioner has been in possession. He further contended that the opposite parties set up a new case in their objections to the effect that opposite party No. 3 Gajraj Prasad has been a tenant and that the case of throwing of articles of opposite party No. 3 Gajraj Prasad on October 18, 1985 should not have been believed when Ramphal was a tenant earlier. He further asserted that he had filed a Commissioner's report in the revisional court which report was not considered. He referred to the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties. 7. But it is admitted to the parties that a Civil Suit No. 73 of 1983, Usha Rani v. Mool Chand is pending in the Civil Court for declaration. The remedy of the petitioner also lay in filing a civil suit and he had this alternative remedy available to him before coming to this court in the proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P.C. 8. Simply because the opposite parties 1 and 2 had prayed in their application dated October 7, 1983 for attachment of the disputed land, it is not to be believed that the petitioner Vijai Bahadur Singh was in possession. Siyaram and Ramphal were admittedly in possession upto the year 1980 and it is not shown that they had surrendered their possession. The opposite party No 3 Gajraj Prasad is claimed to have entered into possession after Ramphal the Magistrate in his spot inspection-note observed that it was alleged before him that the opposite parties 2 and 3 were dispossessed a few days ago. It was after screening the entire evidence led by the parties that a finding was given on point of possession giving the period within two months prior to the date of preliminary order and the revisional court has also rightly observed that the point of actual possession and not of constructive possession was material in the case. It was after screening the entire evidence led by the parties that a finding was given on point of possession giving the period within two months prior to the date of preliminary order and the revisional court has also rightly observed that the point of actual possession and not of constructive possession was material in the case. The revisional court considered all the aspects of the case and it was not obligatory on the revisional court to specifically discuss about the copy of the Commissioner's report which was filed by the petitioner at the stage of revision. Reference to the documents on record was uncalled for in this cate because title was not be decided, aDd some of those documents related to the year 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1984 also. 9. The petitioner relied on a sale-deed executed by Mool Chand in his favour on September 20, 1983. As observed earlier, title was not be decided in these proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has his alternative remedy filing a regular civil suit while one civil suit of opposite already pending. As such this petition has no force and is dismissed.