JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC filed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer, dated December 20, 1988, whereby the revision petition filed, by Smt. Laxmi Devi, non-petitioner No. 2, against the order of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Ajmer dated August 12, 1987 for continuing the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC was set aside. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Smt. Kulwant Kaur, petitioner, is land-lady of residential house No 1129A/26, situated in Bhagwanganj, Ajmer and this house was under the tenancy of Smt. Laxmi Devi and her husband Kishorilal. Smt. Kulwant Kaur filed a civil suit No. No 37/1987 against Kishori Lal and Smt. Laxmi Devi for arrears of rent and ejectment from the said premises. In that suit, it was alleged that a decree for ejectment was passed against the tenants. Smt. Kulwant Kaur proceeded to executed that, decree by means of an Execution Application No 11 of 1980 and the petitioner states that with the Police assistance possession of the said premises was delivered to her on October 11, 1980. After ejectment, Kishori Lal and Smt. Laxmi Devi started living in front of this house by pitching a tent. During the night intervening 5th and 6th June, 1981, Kishori Lal and Smt. Laxmi Devi trespassed over the house. The petitioner initiated proceedings Under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also made a complaint No. 96/1981 Under Sections 145 and 107, Cr.PC on August 4, 1981, raising the dispute about possession and complaining breach of peace. A preliminary order was drawn by the Additional District Magistrate, Ajmer on September 1, 1981. Kulwant Kaur, petitioner, also filed a civil suit Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against Smt. Laxmi Devi and that suit is still pending. Smt. Kulwant Kaur in that suit made an application Under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of receiver, but the application was dismissed by the Civil Court On February 15, 1986. 3. Smt. Kulwant Kaur in that suit made an application Under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of receiver, but the application was dismissed by the Civil Court On February 15, 1986. 3. On August 8, 1986, Laxmi Devi made an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Ajmer stating that a civil suit at the instance of Smt. Kulwant Kaur Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was pending and, therefore, proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC cannot continue as parallel proceedings and the same may be dropped. The Additional District Magistrate dismissed the application filed by Smt. Laxmi Devi. He held that the civil suit has not been decided so far and no decree for possession, or any order to that effect has been passed. He further stated that as the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC had started on account of apprehension of breach of peace and were at the fag end, the application filed by Smt. Laxmi Devi cannot be allowed. 4. Aggrieved by this order of the Additional District Magistrate, Ajmer (City), Smt. Laxmi Devi filed a revision petition No. 39/1987, before the Sessions Judge, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer on December 20, 1988, The Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahanat v. State of UP and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 472 and of this Court in Om Prakash v. State [1987(2) WLN 661] , in which it was held that where proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC are pending and in respect of the same property, a civil suit has also been filed and is pending, parallel proceedings cannot continue. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated August 12,1987 and remanded the case to the Additional District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order in the light of the Additional Sessions Judge. Smt. Kulwant Kaur has moved this petition Under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, relied upon the decision in Subhkaran v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1987 RLR (1) 81) , which was decided by me. I may state that Subhkaran's case (supra) had its own distinguishing features and they may be stated thus. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, relied upon the decision in Subhkaran v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1987 RLR (1) 81) , which was decided by me. I may state that Subhkaran's case (supra) had its own distinguishing features and they may be stated thus. According to Subhkaran, in that case, the title over the flat in question after the death of Manohar Devi, vested in "Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust" and that he had taken the flat on rent from one of the trustees of the Trust named Pannalal Bhatia. Kushal Chand, non-petitioner No 2 in that case who had initiated proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC was not a party to the Civil Suit, instituted by Subhkaran. The said Trust did not come forward to file a civil suit asserting its title and possession against Chandan Mal Duggar, Dhan Raj Duggar, Kushal Kumar and Nirmal Kumar. There was again the fact that while Subhkaran alleged that he was tenant from January 1, 1986 and had entered into possession on that date, but the rent-note Ex. 2 in that case was a subsequently executed document. It was executed on February 12, 1986. The civil suit was filed by Subhkaran only four days before presentation of the complaint. Manohar Devi Jan Kalyan Trust had not filed any title suit with respect to the Manohar Building against Chandan Mal Duggar or his descendents. It is only the tenant who came forward without impleading the other trustees. There was a scramble for possession between Subhkaran and Kushal Chand. Right or title to possess the flat was not even by semblance crystalised between the contenders. It was observed by me that title and possession of both the sides was still very much doubtful or at least highly debatable and, in such circumstances, it was held that merely because Subh Karan has filed a suit without impleading all the eight trustees of the Trust, there was no justification for dropping the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC. The decision in Subhkaran's case, therefore, should be confined within the limits of its own facts. 6. The decision in Subhkaran's case, therefore, should be confined within the limits of its own facts. 6. In the case of Ramsumer Puri Mahant v. The State of UP (supra), in respect of the property in question there was a suit for possession and injunction, being title suit No. 87/85, filed in the court of Civil Judge, where the question of title was gone into by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. Appellant Ramsumer Puri Mahant was defendant in the suit. According to him, an appeal was pending against the decree of the Civil Judge before the Appellate Court. His Lordships observed that, "when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated. We see hardly any jurisdiction for initiating a parallel criminal proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the civil court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us." It was also stated that the criminal court should not invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and the parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders, such as injunction of appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. Their Lordships were satisfied that the preliminary proceedings should not continue and the order of the Magistrate should be quashed. 7. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Smt. Kulwant Kaur has instituted a suit Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against her former tenant Smt. Laxmi Devi. Thus, the question of possession is directly in issue before the Civil Court between all those who were connected with the dispute. Smt. Kulwant Kaur had also moved an application for appointment of receiver before the Civil Court but that was dismissed. The facts in the present case are more nearer to the facts in Ramsumer Puri Mahant's case (supra) and not similar or nearer to my decision in Subh Karan v. State of Rajasthan (supra). 8. Smt. Kulwant Kaur had also moved an application for appointment of receiver before the Civil Court but that was dismissed. The facts in the present case are more nearer to the facts in Ramsumer Puri Mahant's case (supra) and not similar or nearer to my decision in Subh Karan v. State of Rajasthan (supra). 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to a decision of a learned Single Judge in Jagdish v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat (1987 Cr.LJ 1198) . It appears that the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was obssessed by a previous Bench decision of that court in Mohinder Singh v. Dilbagh Rai (1977 Cr.LJ 1029) , at a time when the decision of Supreme Court in Ramsumer Puri Mahant's case had come into existence. It is true that in Ramsumer Puri Mahant's case (supra), plaintiff suit was dismissed and an appeal against dismissal was pending and the question relating to possession had been adjudicated. But, it is also clear that any of the parties had still right to approach the Appellate Court for interim order, such as injunction or appointment of receiver, which provided adequate remedies to the party concerned. I, therefore, find my self in disagreement with the reasoning adopted by Justice Pritpal Singh in the case of Jagdish v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat (supra). 9. Consequently, this petition has no merit in it and it is here by dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******