JUDGMENT Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are that there was a dispute between Smt. Rajpati Devi and Smt. Mohini Devi and others regarding a portion of house no. 345, Rakabganj, Faizabad. The proceedings under Section 145/146, Cr.P.C. were drawn. One civil suit no. 150 of 1976 was decided on August 6, 1976 in favour of Smt. Rajpati Devi holding her to be the landlady of the disputed accommodation. Smt. Mohini Devi and others filed an appeal and that first appeal was dismissed on February 6, 1980. Now a second appeal is said to be pending before the High Court. 2. This petition has been filed by Ranjit Lal Varma who claims to be the tenant of the disputed portion of house no. 345 Rakabganj, Faizabad. His contention is that the disputed property should be released in his favour in the proceedings under Section 145/146, Cr. P.C. and the City Magistrate wrongly passed the order dated April 27, 1981 that since the proceedings under Section 145/146, Cr. P.C. cannot be dropped. 3. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the case of Ram Sumar Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. and Others, 1985 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 108 in which case it was held that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, there is hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code and that there is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court. Also, it was held that the parallel proceeding should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the Criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection during pendency of the dispute. 4. As such, this petition is fit to be allowed. 5. The petition is allowed and the order dated April 27, 1981 of the City Magistrate, Faizabad is quashed together with the proceedings pending before him under Section 145/146, Cr. P.C. with regard to the disputed portion of house no. 345, Rakabganj, Faizabad. 4. As such, this petition is fit to be allowed. 5. The petition is allowed and the order dated April 27, 1981 of the City Magistrate, Faizabad is quashed together with the proceedings pending before him under Section 145/146, Cr. P.C. with regard to the disputed portion of house no. 345, Rakabganj, Faizabad. He is further directed to release the attached disputed portion in favour of the petitioner.