JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The second party in the proceeding has filed this revision petition u/s 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Cuttack on 19-6-1990 converting the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure to one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to state in short the factual backdrop of the case. The Petitioner claims to have been adopted by late Dhruba Charan Das, husband of opposite party No. 1, his adoption is seriously disputed by the latter. Indeed, the opposite party No. 1 has filed a suit (Tide Suit No. 362 of 1986) in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack in which the Petitioner is impleaded as Defendant No. 3. The reliefs sought in the suit are inter alia, to partition the suit properties and deliver possession of her 1/3rd share therein to her and to permanently restrain the Defendant No. 3 not to enter upon the suit land and to interfere in the possession of the Plaintiff in any manner. In the said suit on the application filed by the Plaintiff seeking interim injunction an order has been passed, directing both the parties to maintain status quo. The suit is pending for trial. In the meantime on the report submitted by the local police a proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated on 20th of April 1990 which was converted to one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure by the impugned order, a day prior to the expiry of the statutory period of sixty days. 3. The main thrust of the argument of Shri Mukharjee appearing for the Petitioner is that in the admitted factual backdrop of the case, the learned Magistrate ought not to have initiated any proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure since the parties are already before the Civil Court and the question of possession is being considered in that case. Shri Mohapatra appearing for the opposite party No. 1 while denying the factual position stated above submitted that the interim arrangement made by the Civil Court is not adequate. Shri Mohapatra appearing for the opposite party No. 1 while denying the factual position stated above submitted that the interim arrangement made by the Civil Court is not adequate. He further submitted that the Petitioner has approached the learned Magistrate with an application u/s 145(5), Code of Criminal Procedure to drop the proceeding on the ground noticed ear1ier and the said application is pending before the learned Magistrate. At this stage, Shri Mohapatra submitted, this Court should not interfere in the matter and should "direct the Magistrate to dispose of the application expeditiously. 4. The position is too well settled to admit of any doubt that in a case where the parties have already approached the civil Court in respect of the dispute relating to the case land and the question of possession is being or wil1 be considered in the suit, it is inappropriate for the criminal Court to initiate a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure for consideration of the question of possession of the land. If any decision is necessary in support of the above principle, I may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and the decisions of this Court in the case of Radhamohan Panda and Others Vs. Brundaban Naik and Others, and in the case of Keshab Das and Others Vs. Bauribandhu Behera and Others. In all these decisions it has been stressed that since the Civil Court is the final Court competent to decide on the dispute regarding tide and possession of die disputed land, the parties are already before the said forum and it is open to them to approach the Court for appropriate interim arrangement by filing application for injunction or appointment of receiver, etc. the Criminal Court which is bound by the decision of the Civil Court in the matter should not initiate any proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. That is not to say that in appropriate cases the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under the section. 5. In the present case it is clear from the facts noted above that the parties have already moved the Civil Court and certain interim arrangement has been made regarding possession of the land. That is not to say that in appropriate cases the Magistrate will have no jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under the section. 5. In the present case it is clear from the facts noted above that the parties have already moved the Civil Court and certain interim arrangement has been made regarding possession of the land. If any party is dissatisfied with the order it is open to him/her to either challenge the order or file appropriate application for making any other arrangement regarding possession of the land. 6. Coming to the impugned order, I am constrained to observe that the decision taken by the learned Magistrate to convert the proceeding to one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, inappropriate and goes against the observations/findings recorded by him in the order itself. To elucidate the point, it will be sufficient to quote the last paragraph of the impugned order which runs as follows: The enquiry report of the police in this case does not reveal that the Ist party is in possession of the land. The marriage ceremony of the daughter of the second party was performed on 22-4-1990 on the disputed land. When the matter is pending before the Civil Court there is no necessity to continue the case. As per the decision in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and Others, when a Civil Court is competent to dispose of the title parallel criminal case should not be instituted. The period for promulgation of 144, Code of Criminal Procedure on the disputed property will expire today. Case is converted to 145, Code of Criminal Procedure for deciding the question of possession of the property.... From the above it is manifest that the learned Magistrate was concious of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant's case (supra); Himself felt that when the matter is pending before the Civil Court, there is no necessity to continue the case, but all the same decided to continue the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the order was passed without proper application of mind by the learned Magistrate. 7. Coming to the contention raised by Shri Mohapatra that it should be left to the learned Magistrate to consider whether the proceeding should be dropped, or not, I am unable to accept the same. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the order was passed without proper application of mind by the learned Magistrate. 7. Coming to the contention raised by Shri Mohapatra that it should be left to the learned Magistrate to consider whether the proceeding should be dropped, or not, I am unable to accept the same. In this case the relevant facts are not in dispute. There is no further enquiry to be made for deciding whether Continuance of the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is appropriate or not and both the parties have been heard at length in, this proceeding. In these circumstances driving the parties to the Magistrate, in my view will only cause harassment to them and will mean unnecessary protraction of the litigation. The proceeding should be dropped without any further consideration. 8. I, therefore allow the revision petition, vacate the order passed by the learned Magistrate to convert the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure to one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and direct him to pass appropriate order to drop the proceeding. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed