S. I. JAFRI, J. Sheo Raj Singh, Desh Raj Singh, Bir Singh, sons of Kaley, Chandraman, Birbal and Bhagwana, sons of Nanki filed revision No. 2209 of 1982 in this Court praying that the operation of the order, dated 7-9-82 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar in proceedings under Sections 145/146, Cr. P. C. in Case No. 1 of 1981 be set aside and also the aforesaid proceedings be quashed. The revision as admitted by this Court and the operation of the aforesaid order-was stayed on 10-12-1982. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the revision be converted into an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The application was allowed and the aforesaid revision was converted and treated as an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on 10-12-1982 by this Court. 2. The facts giving rise to the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. as admitted by the parties are that the land in dispute was owned by Ramzani, Alim Uddin and Allah Diya who were brothers. Upon the death of Allah Diya, the name of his widow Smt. Sayeedan was mutated in his place. The dispute regarding the actual possession over the land in question arose between Smt. Sayeedan on one hand and Alim Uddin and Ramzani on the other hand which resulted into initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on 16-5-1966 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The land in dispute was also attached on 19-5-1966 and it was given in the Supuroagi of the Supurdar. Ultimately, to Sub-Divisional Magistrate con cluded the proceedings by holding that Ramzani and Alim Uddin were in actual possession over the land in dispute and the disputed property was directed to be released in favour of Ramzani and Alim Uddin and as such, the land in dispute was delivered to Ramzani and Alim Uddin on 20-10-1969. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Smt. Sayeedan and her two sons Amir and Nura preferred revision before the Sessions Judge. The revisional court took the view that the land in dispute was the joint property and the parties were in joint possession of the same and, therefore, the revisional court referred the matter to the High Court under Section 438, Cr. The revisional court took the view that the land in dispute was the joint property and the parties were in joint possession of the same and, therefore, the revisional court referred the matter to the High Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. (Old Code) for settii g aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C were not maintainable. The High Court accepted the reference by its orde. dated 9-1-1982 and had set aside the aforesaid proceedings as not maintainable. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid revision, circumstances under went a complete change inasmuch as Smt. Sayeedan alientated her share in the land in dispute though a sale-deed, dated 29-4-1970 in favour of Smt. Ram Sakhi, Smt. Santosh Devi and Smt. Usha Devi, but the name of Smt. Sayeedan continued to be recorded in the revenue records. Again by executing another registered sale-deed, dated 21-1-1981. Smt. Sayeedan sold the entire property including the shares in the property owned by Ramzani and Alim Undin in favour of the applicants Shiv Raj Singh and others. Consequent to alienation of the property in their favour, applicants Sheo Raj Singh and others applied for mutation of their names in the said property but the mutation proceedings were abated as by the time, the village Sikandrabad came under the operation of U. P. C. H. Act. Alimuddin, however, Alimuddin died thereafter, leaving Ramzani as his heir and legal representative. 3. It appears that applicants Sheo Raj Singh and others started inter-ferring with the possession of Ramzani over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed, dated 21-1-1981 and consequently, Ramzani filed an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahr. On the said application, a report from the police was called for by the Magistrate. The Police reported on 2-1-1982 that there existed a dispute between the parties over the question of posses sion of land and there was also imminent danger of breach of peace between them. The Magistrate having satisfied himself from the material on record about the existence of the apprehension of breach of peace of respect of the land in dispute between the parties, passed a preliminary order on 6-1-1982 attaching the land and the crops standing thereon. The land and the crops were given in the Supardagi of one Bhagwana. The Magistrate having satisfied himself from the material on record about the existence of the apprehension of breach of peace of respect of the land in dispute between the parties, passed a preliminary order on 6-1-1982 attaching the land and the crops standing thereon. The land and the crops were given in the Supardagi of one Bhagwana. The applicants thereafter, filed criminal revision No. 17 of 1982 against the order, dated 6-1-1982. The revision was ultimately dismissed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Buiandshahr by his order, dated 2cth March, 1982 holding that there was sufficient material before the Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that there existed dispute regarding possession over the land and also there was imminent danger of breach of peace between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge, however, was also of the view that the order attaching the land in dispute was interlocutory and against the same revision was not maintainable. 4. The applicants raised objection before the Sub-divisional Magistrate that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were not maintainable and liable to be dropped in view of the earlier order passed by the High Court on 9-4-1982, dropping the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 1970, Smt. Sayeedan and others v. Alim Uddin and others. On the other hand, Smt. Ram Sakhi and others who were also claiming their right and possession over the land in dispute on the basis of sale-deed, dated 21-4-1970 (which was earlier than the sale-deed in favour of applicants, Shiv Raj Singh and others) also applied for their being impleaded as a party in the proceedings and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order, dated 9-8-1987 impleaded Smt. Ram Sakhi and others as parties to the pro ceedings. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the objection raised by the applicants on 7-9-1982, holding that the parties to the present proceedings were different and the land in dispute was rightly attached by the learned Magistrate. 5. The applicants had, therefore, challenged the validity of the order, dated 7-9-1982 passed by the learned Magistrate by filing the present applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which was originally filed under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. by way of revision (Criminal Revision No. 2209 of 1982 ). 5. The applicants had, therefore, challenged the validity of the order, dated 7-9-1982 passed by the learned Magistrate by filing the present applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which was originally filed under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. by way of revision (Criminal Revision No. 2209 of 1982 ). As slated above, the said revision was subsequently converted and treated as an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the High Court. This court while admitting the aforesaid Revision No. 2209 of 1982, had staved the operation of the order, dated 7-6-1982 passed under Section 145, Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate, directing the parties to file their respective written state ments on 21-9-1982. However, the disputed property continued to remain with the Supurdagi of Bhagwana, son of Madan till now. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record very carefully and I am of the view that the present application filed by the applicants under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the land in dispute had already been held to be joint property and also the pro ceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. as not maintainable by the High Court on 9-4-1982 in Criminal Reference No. 179 of 1970 arising out of revision filed by Smt. Sayeedan and others against Alim Uddin and others. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the present proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order, dated 7-6-1982 regarding the same disputed property is res judicuta and not main tainable. The learned counsel for the applicants has filed a photo copy of the order, dated 9-4-1982 passed in Criminal Reference No. 179 of 1970, Smt. Sayeedan and others v. Alim Uddin and others whereby, the impugned order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sikandrabad on 25-10-1969 was set aside in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were quashed. The afore said photostat copy of the order, dated 9-4-1982 passed by the High Court was kept on the record of this case. 8. P. C. were quashed. The afore said photostat copy of the order, dated 9-4-1982 passed by the High Court was kept on the record of this case. 8. It was also submitted by him that the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order, dated 7-6-1982 that the parties in the present proeedings are different from that of the parties in the earlier pro ceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. decided by High Court on 9-4-1982, does not hold water as applicants Sheo Raj Singh and others had stepped into the shoes of Smt. Sayeedan by the sale-deed executed by Smt. Sayeedan on 21-1-1981 in their favour. 9. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Sayeedan had executed the sale-deed in favour of the applicants of the entire disputed property including the shares of Ramzani and Alim Uddin. It is, thus, quite apparent that the applicants have been claiming exclusive possession over the entire disputed property. Moreover, the applicant did not claim joint possession over the land in dispute. Under the circumstances, I hold that the present proceeding under Section 145, Cr, P, C. pending before Sub- Divisional Magistrate are legally maintainable. 10. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that having executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Ram Sakhi and others Smt. Sayeedan had no right to execute the sale-deed subsequently regarding the entire property in favour c f applicants, Sheo Raj Singh and others and as such the sale-deed executed in their favour was void, ab initio and on the basis of the same Sheo Raj Singh and others cannot rightly claim either the ownership or the possession at any point of time over the disputed propertv. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that neither applicants, Sheo Raj Singh and others nor Smt. Ram Sakhi and others, respondents 3, 4 and 5 were parties to the earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. decided by High Court on 9-4-1982 and, therefore, the order of the High Court, dated 9-4-1982 passed in the aforesaid criminal reference No. 179/70 will not be a bar for initiating subsequent proceedings by the Magistrate regarding same property between the present parties. 11. As shown above, the present case is one of actual possession over the entire property in dispute and not a case of joint possession. 11. As shown above, the present case is one of actual possession over the entire property in dispute and not a case of joint possession. It is also noteworthy that there is nothing on record to show that the applicants had claimed joint possession over the property in dispute. Moreover, the satis faction recorded by the Magistrate regarding apprehension of breach of peace in the impugned order, dated 7- 6-1982 does not appear to be mala fide or moti vated. I, therefore, further hold that the learned Magistrate has rightly initiated proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. between the parties. 12. In the result, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. (converted from Criminal Revision No. 2209 of 1982 to Criminal Miscillaneous Appli cation No. 7930 of 1982) is dismissed as devoid of merit. The interim order granted by this Court on 10-12-1982 staying further proceedings in Case No. 1 of 1982 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and also the operation of the order, dated 7-6-1982 passed oy Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 2209 of 1982 filed by the applicants in this Court are vacated. 13. The office is directed to send a copy of his order to the court below for necessary action. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law expeditiously. Application dismissed. .