Judgment P. S. Sahay, J. 1. Both these applications have been heard together and will be governed by this common order. 2. In these applications a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners to give necessary direction to the Court below for removing the encroachment over the land which was the subject-matter of the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has finally terminated in favour of the petitioners. 3. After the final order was passed in the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code on 29-1-1983 in which the petitioners were declared to be in possession of land of Khatas No.2s5 and 288 of village Udaipur, P. S. Unkauri District patna, the opposite party moved this Court in Criminal Revision No.82 of 1983 which was admitted. Thereafter, the opposite parties wanted to encroach upon the land and the petitioners filed a petition before the Court for a direction to the local Police to get the encroachment removed ; a copy of the order has been filed and marked Annexure-1. Since the matter was pending in this Court in Criminal revision No.82 of 1983 no order was passed and against the aforesaid order the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.8753 of 1983 which was dispossed of on 26-9-1983 with a direction that the petitioners should file an application before the Court below placing their grievances. The petitioners filed a petition before the court below in pursuance of the order of this Court for getting the encroachment removed but the learned Magistrate, by his order dated 9-2-1984, rejected the prayer on the ground that there is no provision in the Code ; copy whereof has been filed and marked Annexure-4. Thereafter, an application was filed and, after notice to the opposite party, the application was admitted on 12-3-1984 and the order for status quo, as existing on that date, was passed. Thereafter, another application was filed in this Court which gave rise to Original Criminal miscellaneous No.13 of 1984 that inspite of the order of status-quo the opposite parties have made certain constructions and notice was ordered to be issued and the case was ordered to be placed with the original case ; Criminal Miscellaneous No.1775 of 1984. Thereafter, another application was filed in this Court which gave rise to Original Criminal miscellaneous No.13 of 1984 that inspite of the order of status-quo the opposite parties have made certain constructions and notice was ordered to be issued and the case was ordered to be placed with the original case ; Criminal Miscellaneous No.1775 of 1984. It may also be mentioned here that Criminal Revision No.82 of 1983 passed against the final order of the learned Magistrate was also dismissed by this Court on 1-11-1983. 4. Mr. Balbhadra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners have been declared to be in possession of the land and after the order of the learned Magistrate and the dismissal of the Criminal Revision No.82 of 1983 they have been encroaching upon the land and, therefore, this Court can give a direction to remove the encroachments and give possession of the land which has been declared to be in possession of these petitioners. Mr. Parmeshwar prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite parties, has, on the other hand, submitted that there is no such provision in the Code and by the order of the Criminal Court only possession of the petitioners have been declared and for any further relief they should move the Civil Court and not this court. He has, further, submitted that the persons said to have encroached upon the land were not parties to the proceeding and, therefore, they will not be bound by the order passed by the Criminal Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Sec.145 sub-clause (6) (a) of the Code which runs hereunder :- "145 (6) (a ).-If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. " but this is altogether different provision and will not apply to the instant case for the simple reason that it is not the case of the petitioners that they have been dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of the Police Officer or other information was received by the Magistrate or after the date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1) he had been dispossessed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support oi his contention has relied on the case of Narsingh Rao V/s. Sri Char an Panda, AIR 1967 Orissa 182. But, that was a case which was decided under Sections 517 sub-clause (l)and 522 of the Old Code where it was held that the aforesaid sections are not confined to movable property but also those cases of dispossession of property not covered by Sec.522 sub-clause (1) of the Code. Reliance has been placed in paragraph 10 of the judgment which runs as follows : "so far the Court is concerned, it is well settled that after the cancellation of the order under Sec.145 of the Code the Magistrate has full jurisdiction to direct restoration of the attached property and crops to the party from whose possession they were taken. There is no express provision under Sec.145 of passing ancillary or incidental orders for disposal of attached property. The Magistrate has jurisdiction to invoke the power conferred upon him under Sec.517 sub-clause (1) of the Code and return the attached property from whose custody it was taken. " 6. In my opinion, this case will not support the case of the petitioners because, while deciding a proceeding under Sec.145, if the Court was custodia lagis of the properties then it has every power to restore possession to the real owner after deciding the case. But, in the instant case, the petitioners are sought to be dispossessed after the final order was passed and, in that view of the matter the aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then no party will go to the Civil Court and will try to get his title and possession both adjudicated by the Criminal Court and that is not the object of the Code so far the dispute regarding the possession of the land is concerned. 7. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then no party will go to the Civil Court and will try to get his title and possession both adjudicated by the Criminal Court and that is not the object of the Code so far the dispute regarding the possession of the land is concerned. 7. Another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the case of Misri and others V/s. Nazir Hussian 1976 CLJ Vol. I, 924. In that case there was a final order in a case under Sec.145 of the Code and after that the winning party was dispossessed and a petition was filed before the Magistrate to give direction to the Circle Inspector to restore possession of the land and the order was passed in his favour. But even after that they were dispossessed by the other side ; a prayer was again made to restore possession which was contested on the ground that the remedy of the aggrieved party was by moving the Civil Court and not the Criminal Court. This argument was repealed by single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court who held that the Magistrate did not become functus officio and he can implement his own order. Further, it has been held that the scope of Sec.145 of the Code, though limited, extends to the consideration and determination of the right of actual possession of a party and if the matter is decided in favour of a party then that party has to be put in possession of the land. I most regretfully, differ from the observations made by their lordship for the simple reason that there is no provision in the Code by which a Court can order the possession to be restored to a party, who has been declared in possession of the land. The Criminal Court only declares possession and nothing more. Of course, even after that if there is an attempt to dispossess then suitable preventive action can be taken against those persons who want to disturb possession under Sec.107 of the Code, but there is no provision by which a Magistrate can give possession to a party after dispossession. That will be amount to usurping the function of a Civil Court and may also lead to complications. 8. For the reasons, given above, no ground for interference is made out. That will be amount to usurping the function of a Civil Court and may also lead to complications. 8. For the reasons, given above, no ground for interference is made out. Both the applications are accordingly, dismissed. Applications dismissed.