Judgment B. N. Sinha, J. 1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code)is directed against the order dated 3-10-1986 passed by the Sub-divisional magistrate, Jahanabad in suit no.791 of 1986, initiating a proceeding under section 145 of the Code in respect of certain plots of land situated a village baisar, Police Station Mahandi, district Jahanabad and directing the petitioners and opposite party No.2 to put in their written statements in respect of the fact of actual possession over the land in dispute. The petitioners are the 2nd party and the opposite party no.2 is the first party in the proceeding, 2. In respect of those very lands, a proceeding under Sec.144 of the code had been initiated earlier against these parties which was disposed of by the same Sub-divisional Magistrate by his order dated 26-9-1986 vacating the rule is used in that proceeding in favour of these petitioners who were 1st party in the proceeding and making the rule absolute against the opposite No.2 who was second party in that proceeding. 3. The present application came up for admission before Hon ble Mr. Justice R. N. Lal who admitted this application and further ordered that during the pendency of this application the operation of the order of the court below shall remain stayed. A petition was filed an behalf of the opposite party No.2 for vacating the stay and a counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioners in reply thereof has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order on the ground that on 3-10-1986, there could be no justification or propriety for initating a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code in respect of land in proceeding on mere petition filed before him by opposite party No.2 when just only a week back the same Sub-divisional magistrate decided the proceedings under section 144 of the Code relating to this very land against opposite party No.2. Secondly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that opposite party no.2 has filed a title suit bearing no 68 of 1985 with respect to the same land claiming possession thereon and has also prayed for injunction against the petitioners in that suit and pending that civil litigation between the parties with respect of the same lands, there was no justification for the learned Sub-divisional magistrate to draw a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code in respect of those very lands. 5. It appears from the impugned order that the present proceeding was drawn merely on the basis of a petition filed by opposite party No.2. The same sub-Divisional Magistrate had decided a proceeding under Sec.144 of the code between the parties concerning those very land just a week back. There appears no justification for drawing the instant proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code without there being any report from any authority that there was a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning those lands. The Sub-divisional magistrate has mentioned in the impugned order that from the perusal of the petition, documents and arguments advanced by the learned lawyer, he was satisfied that there was bona fide dispute and apprehension of breach of peace still in existance at the spot between the parties over those lands. Of course, in initiating a proceeding under section 145 of the Code it is the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which is required. But there must be something concreate and reasonable on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional magistrate can form such opinion that there was a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land. The satisfaction of the Magistrate should never be arbitrary. In the instant case, under the circumstances mentioned above, there could be no justification for the Sub-divisional magistrate to hold merely on the basis of the petition filed by opposite party no.2 that he was satisfied that there is bona fide dispute still is existance at the spot. 6. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 had filed Title Suit No.68 of 1986 in respect of those very lands claiming to be in possession over those lands and had also prayed for injunction against the petitioners. There could be no justification for the Sub-divisional Magistrate to draw the instant proceeding when the question of possession over the land is being examined by the Civil Court. There could be no justification for the Sub-divisional Magistrate to draw the instant proceeding when the question of possession over the land is being examined by the Civil Court. I am buttressed in my view by the decision of the supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri mahant V/s. The State of U. P. and others, (1985 BBCJ p.37), in which it has been held that when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and possession is being examined by the Civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such an injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of property during the pendency of the dispute, the Criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction. It is further held in that decision by the Supreme Court that multiplicity of the litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over the meaningless litigation. 7. For these reasons, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and it should be quashed. 8. I accordingly allow this application and quash the order of the learned magistrate by which the proceeding under section 145 of the Code was initiated by him. Application allowed.