K. NATH, J. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure had been referred to a Larger Bench by dated 24th July, 1978 by the learned Single Judge of this court who did not feel inclined to agree with the view expressed in the case Ramadhin v. Shyama Devi and others, 1977 Cr LJ 453. 2. The short facts are that in respect of plot Nos. 37 38, 323 and 325 of village Mohrania, district Kheri, an application for proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was made by Smt. Jagdei opposite party No. I whereupon a police report was submitted and a preliminary order under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was passed by the concerned Executive Magistrate on 30-11-1976 calling upon the parties for filing their written statements in respect of their claims. 3. While the proceedings were pending, Smt. Jagdei again applied for attachment of the property under Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. The leamed Magistrate having been satisfied with the existence of an emergency likely 10 cause a breach of peace passed an order on 7-12-1976 under Section 146 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure directing the property to be attached. The Police attached the property and placed it in the Supurdegi of a Supurdar. 4. Subsequently on 22-2-1977 the learned Magistrate formed an opinion that the attachment could continue until the competent court determined the rights of the parties with regard to the person entitled to possession of the pro-petty, and on that basis directed that the record of the case under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure be consigned to the record room. In other words, the Magistrate refused to exercise any further jurisdiction in the case. 5. The matter was challenged in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who held that the order dated 22-2-1 77 was only a routine order and was not a final order, and therefore, the revision was not maintainable. 6. When the case figured before this court, reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on the case of Ram Adhin v. Shyama Devi and others (supra ). The view taken therein was that in the event of an attachment on existence of emergency, the Magistrate was bound nevertheless, to examine the question of possession of the parties over the property and thereafter pass a final order in the case. The view taken therein was that in the event of an attachment on existence of emergency, the Magistrate was bound nevertheless, to examine the question of possession of the parties over the property and thereafter pass a final order in the case. Brother From Prakash, J. however, was of the opinion this in the case of emergency when the property is attached, it is not necessary for him to take further proceeding to determine the possession of any of the parties under Section 145 (4), Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter, he directed the case to be laid before a larger Bench, that is how the case is before us. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the appearance has not been made on behalf of the opposite parties although the name of Shri S. K. Tiwari is printed in the cause list, as Advocate for the opposite parties. 8. The point need not detain us any longer because we notice that it is substantially settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura lal v. Banwari Lal and another, (1979) 4 SCC 665 , that was a case where after passing a preliminary order in respect of the disputed house under Section 145 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate attached the property under Section 146 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure and when he tried to proceed further with the enquiry under Section 145, an objection was raised that further enquiry could not be made because after the emergency attachment the only thing which was to be done was to leave the matter for decision by the competent court about the entitlement of the concerned party to get possession of the property. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of Sections 145 and 146. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of Sections 145 and 146. Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Magistrate on being satisfied about the existence of a dispute likely to cause of breach of peace, issues preliminary order calling upon the parties to submit their written statements, takes evidence and decides as to which of the parties was in possession on the appropriate date but if he is unable to decide as to who was in such possession, or that none of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the property, and that, in that manner, a proceeding beginning with the preliminary order must be followed up by an enquiry and end with the Magistrate deciding in one of the ways provided under those provisions. It was held that there was no half way house and there was no question of stopping in the middle, leaving the parties to go to the Civil Court. The only exception where the Magistrate may cancel the preli minary order is the one if it is found that there is no dispute likely to cause breach of peace. It was finally observed that it was wrong to hold that the Magistrates jurisdiction ends as soon as an attachment is made on the ground of emergency. 9. In view of the above, the decision of this court in the case of Ram Adhin v. Smt, Shyam Devi and others, (supra) does not deserve to be parted with and the application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure succeeds to answer that the proceedings are concluded under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law. 10. The application is allowed. The order dated 22-2-1977 is set aside. We direct that the Magistrate concerned will resume the proceedings of the case under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure at the stage where he left it, and will proceed to decide as to which of the parties was in possession of the property on the relevant date and thereafter to decide the case finally in accordance with law. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kheri will try 10 dispose of the case within a period of three months from the service of the copy of this order upon him. Application allowed. .