JUDGMENT 1. 1. The dispute in this, case relates to agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 64512 measuring 18 Biswas. This land is situated in Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. The petitioner Ram Pal and one Dinesh Kumar purchased this land in an auction in the year 1980. Sale certificate was issued jointly in the names of the petitioner Rant Pal and Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter Dinesh Kumar executed an agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner on 18th Feb, 1981 for a specified sum. This agreement included other lands also, besides the share of Dinesh Kumar in Khasra No. 645/2. The petitioner claimed that he was in exclusive possession of this land after the agreement in his favour. 2. It appears that subsequently Dinesh Kumar entered into another agreement with the non-petitioner No. 2 Amarjeet Singh for the sale of the disputed land on 16th Nov., 1981. 3. The petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the contract on 22nd Sept., 1982. He moved an application playing that Dinesh Kumar be restrained from selling or transferring the disputed land to any one else, but this application was dismissed on 20th October, 1983, as Dinesh Kumar had taken a plea that land had already been sold. However the registered sale deed in favour of Amar Jeet Singh was executed sometime in 1984. Amarjeet Singh was made a party to the civil suit on 3rd October, 1987. 4. The petitioner had moved a second application for grant of temporary injunction on 10th Jan, 1986 praying that his possession over the property should riot he disturbed, and this application is pending before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and so far no order has been passed on it by the Additional District Judge. 5. Both the parties, namely, the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 2 made reports at the Police Station Phulera and upon this the SHO made a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sambher on 28th Feb, 1986. On the sauce day the SDM passed an order under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The allegation of the petitioner was that the non-petitioner No. 2 bad cut and removed about 400 Babool trees standing in this land and that he wanted to take possession over the land. On the sauce day the SDM passed an order under Section 145 Cr. P.C. The allegation of the petitioner was that the non-petitioner No. 2 bad cut and removed about 400 Babool trees standing in this land and that he wanted to take possession over the land. Amarjeet Singh had made a report that he had purchased Khasra No. 645/2 and other lands from Dinesh Kumar, but Ram Pal the prevent petitioner was making attempts to take possession over the land. The learned SDM drew up a statement of the case and considering the fact that the case was one of emergency and there was apprehension of breach of peace, the property was attached and Tehsildar Sambher was appointed as receiver over the same. Ram Pal was made party No. I and Amarjeet Singh was made party No. 2. 6. Amarjeet preferred a revision against the order of the SDM, Sambher and this was disposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur on 17th July, 1989 The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. (1985 Cr. L.J. 752) . held that it was not desirable that a parallel proceeding should remain pending before a Civil Court as well as a Criminal Court. Considering that the dispute was between the same parties about the same land and that had been pending in a civil suit, proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. could not be taken. Hence the order passed by the SDM Sambher was set aside. 7. Against this order the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Khasra No. 645,2 has never been partitioned and he was cultivating the whole of the land without any division of holding. The land was purchased jointly with Dinesh Kumar but he executed an agreement for sale on 18th Feb, 1981 and thereafter he was not in possession of this field. In view of this he has claimed exclusive possession. It has been contended that the decision in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (1) cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case the civil suit had concluded and a finding about possession of a particular party had been given by the Court. It has been contended that the decision in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (1) cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of the present case, because in that case the civil suit had concluded and a finding about possession of a particular party had been given by the Court. So long as the fact of possession is not decided, any one party cannot claim his possession. 9. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after issue of notice under Section 145 Cr. P C., the non-petitioner should have submitted its case before the SDM. Sambher and should not have approached the Sessions Judge in a revision. 10. The most important contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the SHO had made a report before the SDM Sambher that there was a danger of breach of peace as had been reported by both the sides and in the face of this situation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. 11. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 has asserted that the possession over the portion sold to him was delievered to him and he has been cultivating that portion thereafter. The case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (1) has been relied upon to contend that in view of the civil suit pending in the case and also the application for grant of temporary injunction, the criminal court should not take proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P C. and 146 Cr. P.C. It is argued that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Additional Session, Judge when the order dropping the proceedings in view of the civil suit can be said to be correct. 12. Before dealing with the contentions of both the parties, I may took into the decisions which have been cited on behalf of both the sides. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Jhunamal alias Devaadas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others ( AIR 1988 SC 1973 ) wherein it has been held that power under Section 145 Cr. P C. not to be exercised where a civil suit regarding immovable property is pending. It was, however, observed that Section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be set at naught only because unsuccessful party has approached the Civil Court. 14. P C. not to be exercised where a civil suit regarding immovable property is pending. It was, however, observed that Section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be set at naught only because unsuccessful party has approached the Civil Court. 14. In Subhakaran v. State of Rajasthan ( 1987 (1) R.L.R. 81 ) , the petitioner applied before the ADM for dropping of proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. and for withdrawal of attachment on the ground: that civil suit was pending in which temporary injunction had been granted. The ADM considered it proper to continue the attachment and stayed further proceedings before him till the question of possession was decided by the Civil Court. In the circumstances it was held that the question of title and possession of both sides were doubtful and debatable, there was no justification for dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P C. The case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (l) was referred to and it was observed that in that case the question of title was gone into and the trial court had given a decision on this point and it could not be said that the question of title and possession was doubtful. 15. In Rameshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan. (1987(2) R.L.R. 569) the Civil Court stated that it was not possible to decide even prima facie as to which party was in possession and had pissed an order to maintain status quo. As there were chances of blood shed and trial of muscle strength, the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was not interfered with by the High Court. 16. In Pritam and another v. Durga Singh and others. (1976 Cr.L.J. 91) it has been held that pendency of a civil suit is not a bar to Section 145 Cr.P.C. although same is subject to decision in the civil suit. Likelihood of breach of peace is the criterion to exercise the jurisdiction. 17. Relying upon Narsingh v. Dhanraj and ors. (1984 R.L.R. 98) , Madanlal v. State of Rajasthan (1983 R L.W. 200) & Nathilal v. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh and another (1983(2) Crimes 933) it has been contended that the Sessions Court should not interfere lightly with the discretion of the Magistrate and his finding about the existence of a dispute on account of which breach of peace is likely to occur. 18. 18. The learned counsell for the non-petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (supra) (I) cited above and this shall be looked into lateron. The other case relied is Moda Ram and ors. v. Prithvi Raj (1984 R.L.R.588) wherein it has been held that where dispute about land has already gone to the Revenue Court and the right, of parties can be conveniently decided there, the Magistrate is not justified in taking proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. 19. In Harvinder Singh v. Jaswant Singh and ors. ( 1987 (2) R.L.R. 76 ) a civil suit had already been filed. wherein interim order was passed before the order under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. was passed. These proceedings were quashed in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the undertaking given by the petitioner. 20. In Shyam Sunder and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and others (1985 R.L.R. 1036) it has been held that when civil suit in respect of the property. which is also a subject matter of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is pending and there is already an interim or final order of the Civil Court in respect of the same property, then the Criminal Courts acting under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should stay their hands and respect the some till the order of the Civil Court is reversed. modified or changed in appeal or revision. It was also held that while dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. it is open to the Court to make consequential or incidental order to restore possession to party from whom it had been taken. 21. In Peeru Singh v. Ganga Singh and others (1981 R.C.C. 57) the party failed to secure injunction order in a civil suit and thereafter filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This was held to be not bonafide. 22. Similarly in Arvind Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others (1986 R.L.R. 306) . it was held that when matter is pending in a Civil Court and interim orders have been passed, It would no. be proper to allow criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. to continue. 23. 22. Similarly in Arvind Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others (1986 R.L.R. 306) . it was held that when matter is pending in a Civil Court and interim orders have been passed, It would no. be proper to allow criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. to continue. 23. In view of the decisions which have been considered above, it is to be seen whether in view of the pendency of the civil suit it could be said that the Criminal Courts should not hate taken proceedings under sections 145 and 146 Cr. P. C. So far as the facts go it can be said that the Civil Court has not passed any order with regard to interim possession over the property, which is the subject matter of dispute. An application for grant of injunction was filed in Jan. 1986. but the same is pending. The earlier application, which was dismissed was for restraining Dinesh Kumar from transferring the property to any one else. This has nothing to do with the possession over the disputed land. No doubt its dispute is pending before the Civil Court, but at the same tine it can be said that so far no finding of any sort as regards possession over the property has been given and no arrangement about possession during the pendency of the suit has been made. In the case of Ram Sunder Puri Mahant (supra) (1), the question of possession had been already adjudicated when the parallel criminal proceedings were dropped. It was also observed that when the parties are in a position to approach the Civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the dispute, the criminal court should not he a1lowed to invoke its jurisdiction. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of parties, nor should public time be allowed to be wasted ever meaningless litigation. 24. On tie basis of this decision, it can be said that the parties in the present case can approach the Civil Court for a suitable interim order in respect of possession over the property. When the siltation in the present case is such that in absence of an order of the Civil Court, there is likelihood of breach of peace with regard to possession over the property. When the siltation in the present case is such that in absence of an order of the Civil Court, there is likelihood of breach of peace with regard to possession over the property. then, if the SDM is satisfied about the existence of this situation, it cannot to said that the SDM should keep his hands off and allow some untoward incident to occur merely because a civil suit is pending. The main purpose of proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is to prevent breach of peace concerning any land etc. and the Position ought to be examined by him in order to find out whether there is a dispute concerning the property exists, which is likely to cause breach of peace. If so, the Magistrate has to act under Section 145(I) Cr.P.C. and the question whether the pendency of civil suit should put a stop to the criminal proceedings would arise only when complete circumstances are placed before the. Magistrate. Here the parties did not submit their claims before the SDM, but the matter was taken up in revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has examined the question of pendency of civil suit but has not looked into the question about existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace. These two matters are to be considered together while deciding whether proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. are to be continued or dropped. If the Civil Court has already given a decision, which may be final or has made some interim arrangement then it may be possible that such order would look after the aspect of likelihood of breach of peace. But there may be a situation when there may be no order of the Civil Court or the order of the Civil Court may not be dealing with the situation, which is likely to cause a breach of the peace. in such circumstances the Magistrate has to take some action. It is quite another matter that the parties may be directed to approach the Civil Courts to obtain a suitable order within a particular period and after that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. may be dropped. This is the situation in the present case. in such circumstances the Magistrate has to take some action. It is quite another matter that the parties may be directed to approach the Civil Courts to obtain a suitable order within a particular period and after that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. may be dropped. This is the situation in the present case. A dispute regarding possession over immovable property is pending in a Civil Court and at the same time both the parties on different occasions made reports at the Police Station about likelihood of breach of peace with respect to the dispute concerning the possession over the land. The Civil Court has so far not passed any interim order, but it can be said that one party has already approached for grant of injunction and this matter can be decided and when decided it will take care of the dispute till such time as the final adjudication is made. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge dropping the proceedings, specially, in view of the fact that the finding, of the Magistrate about the existence of a dispute which is likely to cause a breach of peace, has not been set aside, cannot he said to be proper. At the same time. I am of the view that parallel criminal proceedings cannot he allowed to remain pending indefinitely when the dispute is already before the Civil Court. Therefore the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. cannot be dropped till such time as the Civil Court passes some interim order. 25. In the circumstances. this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, dated, 17th July, 1989, dropping the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. is set aside. However, it is directed that for a period of three months the parties to the dispute shall maintain status quo as regards possession over the land and till this time the order of the SDM appointing a receiver shall not be executed. I am told that a civil suit between the parties is pending before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who has decided the revision, against which the petitioner has approached this Court. The Additional District Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur is directed that the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the petitioner should be decided as early as possible. The Additional District Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur is directed that the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the petitioner should be decided as early as possible. Thereafter the parties may get the matter decided by the SDM whether the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. should continue or not, according to the circumstances which exist at that time.Petition allowed. *******