Judgment : This is a petition filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Sec.145, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Some of the petitioners have filed O.S.No.715 of 1990 on the file of the Fifth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also obtained an order of injunction in I.ANo.594 of 1990 on 7.7.1990, to the following effect: “…this Court doth order temporary injunction be awarded restraining the respondents herein, their agents, servants or any person claiming title under them from interfering with peaceful conduct of the business of petitioner No.4 in S.Nos.107, 108, 106/4, 106/2B, 106/3C, 106/ 4B and 106/3, situated at Mangalpally village R.R.District admeasuring Ac.29.29 Guntas and also at premises bearing No.16-11-740/1/A, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad until further orders of this Court. However, the plaintiff No.3 shall send statements of accounts showing the profits and losses in the business every month D1 and such other information as required including the inspection of the account books. Except these acts the defendants are not entitled to claim other rights pending disposal of this petition.” Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code and attached the property. The property is now in the custody/possession of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The said proceedings are now challenged by way of the present petition. 3. It is well established that, when once the matter is pending in civil Court, the aggrieved parties should approach the civil Court for appropriate relief; instead, they cannot rush to other authorities including the Executive Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, there is no bar for the Executive Magistrate to take action when there is likelihood of breach of peace. However, the parties concerned, or aggrieved parties must approach the civil Court, especially when the civil Court has granted temporary injunction in the matter bringing all the facts and circumstances in their favour to the notice of the civil Court whereupon the civil Court can effectively consider the matter, and decide the issue. 4. However, the parties concerned, or aggrieved parties must approach the civil Court, especially when the civil Court has granted temporary injunction in the matter bringing all the facts and circumstances in their favour to the notice of the civil Court whereupon the civil Court can effectively consider the matter, and decide the issue. 4. The petitioner in support of their case for quashing the proceedings have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P. Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 472 wherein it is held: “When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a paralled criminal proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim order such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during 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.” This judgment of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jhunmal v. State of M.P. Jhunmal v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1973. In that case the facts are quite different. Final order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code was already passed. Thereafter, the party who lost in the proceedings under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code filed a civil suit and also an interlocutory application for injunction. The trial Court granted an injunction. An appeal was filed against that order. The appellate Court vacated the injunction. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the High Court against the order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code which was dismissed. Against that dismissal, a criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code was filed. The High Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 472, quashed the final order passed under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the High Court against the order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code which was dismissed. Against that dismissal, a criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code was filed. The High Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 472, quashed the final order passed under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court considering the circumstances in that case, held as under: “It is true that in cases of dispute regarding immovable property a party should not be permitted to litigate before the criminal Court when the civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject-matter. That does not, however, mean that the concluded order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code made by the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction should be set at naught merely because the unsuccessful party has approached the civil Court. An order made under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code, deals with the factum of possession of the party on a particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil Court. The unsuccessful party, therefore must get relief only in the civil Court. He may move the civil Court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right of possession. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached.” 6. The unsuccessful party, therefore must get relief only in the civil Court. He may move the civil Court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right of possession. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached.” 6. From the above two decisions of the Supreme Court it is to be deducted that (i) where a party filed a civil suit and obtains injunction against the defendant, it not open to the defendant to initiate proceedings under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code and in a case where on such an initiation a preliminary order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code, is passed such order is liable to be quashed at the instance of the plaintiff inasmuch as it is open to the defendant to participate in the civil proceedings and have the remedy from there itself; and (ii) where Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings are already initiated and final orders passed it is open to the aggrieved party to initiate civil proceedings by means of a suit and in the event of his failure to obtain interim orders of injunction from the trial Court, he may pursue the same from the revisional or High Court. However, the revisional or High Court shall not quash the orders made in Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code proceedings on the simple ground that civil suit is pending, but may quash the same on merits. 7. In the present case, after the civil suit was filed and injunction obtained the preliminary order under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code was passed and yet the inquiry under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code has to go on. Therefore, it amounts to multiplicity of proceedings. It is settled principle that, ultimately the civil Court judgment will prevail. Therefore, it is open to respondents 2 to 5 to approach the civil Court and contest the matter, and get their rights decided. Further, continuing the proceedings under Sec.145, Criminal Procedure Code in the present case amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and the proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed, more so in the face of the orders of injunction granted by the civil Court. 8. In the result, the proceedings are quashed and the petition allowed. It is however, open to the parties to approach the civil Court and agitate their rights.