K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) HOW proceedings are conducted in lower courts in a cavalier fashion is best illustrated by these three criminal revisions arising out of a common order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate of Parlakhemundi which were heard analogously and shall be governed by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE land in dispute, with an area of about one acre situate in village Nuagada, is the subject-matter of a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('code' for short ). On a police report to the effect that there was apprehension of breach of peace relating to the possession of the disputed land between the petitioner a widow and the opposite parties being members of the second party, a preliminary order was drawn up on 30-7-1977 and the disputing parties were called upon to file their statements. Both the parties in their statements claimed possession in respect thereof. After a protracted proceeding lasting up to the month of June of the year 1982, when perhaps the petitioner had lost interest so also her counsel, the case was taken up for hearing, some evidence on behalf of the second party (opposite parties 1, 2 and 3) was recorded and without making a real effort to impart justice, the learned Executive Magistrate made a short-cut approach and declared the possession of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the disputed land. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the civil court had decreed a suit for permanent injunction against opposite parties 1 and 4 restraining them from entering upon the disputed land. The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have respected the civil court decree so as to declare that the petitioner was in possession thereof. In support of his contention he produced the certified copy of the decree passed in T. S. No. 49 of 1975 by Munsif, Parlakhemundi and also the certified copies of the interim orders of injunction made in the suit. Mr. In support of his contention he produced the certified copy of the decree passed in T. S. No. 49 of 1975 by Munsif, Parlakhemundi and also the certified copies of the interim orders of injunction made in the suit. Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 did not dispute the orders and the decree, but contended that there was apprehension of breach of peace on the date of the preliminary order and so there was justification not only for initiating the proceeding under S. 145 of the Code, but also for declaration of the possession of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 on the basis of materials placed on record. ( 4 ) ON scrutiny of the records it was noticed that the petitioner had filed four documents on 12-9-1977 along with her written statement and in support of the averments made in it. The documents were as follows :- (I) order of the Munsif granting ad interim injunction on 4-12-1975 in M. J. C. No. 81 of 1975 arising out of T. S. No. 49 of 1975: (ii) order of the Munsif dt. 11-11-1976 making the ad interim order of injunction absolute; (iii) decree passed in T. S. No. 49 of 1975 on 22-6-1977 granting permanent injunction : and (iv) order of Munsif in M. J. C. No. 1 of 1977 dt. 24-6-1977 holding opposite party No. 1 guilty of disobedience of the order of injunction. Unfortunately, the learned counsel, who represented the petitioner before the learned Executive Magistrate, took back the documents on 3-7-1980 and the same were not re-filed in the court for the purpose of reference at the time of adjudication of the proceeding. As already referred above, this was presumably on account of the fact that due to long delay in disposal of the proceeding the petitioner, a helpless widow, lost interest in the proceeding and allowed the same to drift. Nevertheless, in her written statement she had in substance delineated all the facts relating to the orders and decree which unfortunately could not be taken advantage of by the learned Executive Magistrate while passing the impugned order. Had he the advantage of considering the documents, I believe, in view of the settled principle of law, his decision, would have been otherwise. Had he the advantage of considering the documents, I believe, in view of the settled principle of law, his decision, would have been otherwise. ( 5 ) RELYING upon a decision reported in air 1985 SC 472 Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. it was held by this Court in a case reported in (1986) 1 Orissa LR 586, Radhamohan Panda v. Brundaban Naik that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court and the same should be honoured in a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code. A similar view had earlier been taken in (1984) 1 Orissa LR 1039, Kirtan Jena v. Biswanath Swain and (1985) 59 Cut LT (short-notes) 111, Dibakar Badhei v. Ramananda Sahu. Thus, the consistent view taken by this Court is that an Executive Magistrate while deciding a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code should honour the decision of a civil court relating to the land in dispute. in view of this principle, I glanced through the certified copy of the decree in T. S. No. 49 of 1975 and found that opposite parties 1 and 4 had been restrained from entering upon the disputed land and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof by the petitioner. If such a decree was passed on 22-6-1977 it would be travesty of truth to say that about a month after the petitioner lost her possession and the opposite parties all of a sudden came upon possession thereof so as to raise a dispute under S. 145 of the Code. If taking advantage of the helplessness of a party, a dispute is created shortly after a decree was passed in favour of the former and a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code is initiated, it must be held to be a mala fide proceeding. ( 6 ) AS rightly pointed out in (1986) 1 Orissa LR 586 (supra), a proceeding under S. 145 of the Code is an emergent proceeding which has to be disposed of with due expedition. If such a proceeding is sustained for years, it is abuse of the process of law. This proceeding initiated in the year 1977 is still alive. If such a proceeding is sustained for years, it is abuse of the process of law. This proceeding initiated in the year 1977 is still alive. Although I was prone to quash the proceeding, yet it was not possible to do so, because the documents referred to above were not before the learned Executive Magistrate and some of the parties in the proceeding were not parties to the suit. The principle of natural justice demands that the proceeding should be disposed of while all the parties have access to these documents. Therefore, at the risk of delay, I find no alternative than to remand the case to the court of the learned Executive Magistrate for fresh disposal according to law. The certified copies of the documents filed in this Court on 23-10-1986 shall also be sent back along with lower court records. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the criminal revisions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the proceeding under S. 145 of the Code is remanded to be disposed of within three months after receipt of the records under intimation to the Court. The parties are directed to appear in the court of the learned Executive Magistrate on 12-11-1986. The lower court records may be sent back forthwith. Revision allowed. .