B. P. SINGH, J. Abdul Gafoor and others have filed this application for revision against the order dated 19-6-1989 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1988 (Taufil Ahmad and another v, Abdul Gafoor and others), 2. A processing under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of plot No 279/1 was pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Mirzapur. Satisfied on the police report dated 8th April, 1986 that there was apprehension of breach of peace In respect of plot No. 279/1, the City Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 7-6- 1986 attaching the plot in question. 3. Both the contesting parties were called upon to file written statements Abdul Gafoor and others, the first party, filed a written statement and claimed that a suit was already pending in the Civil Courts in which parties were directed to maintain status quo and that the first party was in possession over the disputed plot. 4. Tufail Ahmad and Mohd. Jamin, the second party, filed the written statement and contended that the then Zamindar of the plot in question had executed a lease in favour of one Raj Karan on 13-2-1957 and that the said Raj Karan had transferred the plot in question in favour of Smt. Madiaa Bibi and Smt. Parvin Dhanjum, wives of Tufail Ahmad and Mohd. Jamin. Their claim was that they were in exclusive possession over the disputed plot from 6-9-1985, the date on which the sale-deed was executed by Raj Karan in favour of their wives. 5. Before the learned City Magistrate an application for dropping the proceedings was moved by Abdul Gafoor and others on 22-12-1987. Copies of the plaint of revenue court and other paper were also filed. Learned City Magistrate did not decide the application for dropping the proceedings and hold that he would dispose of this application along with the whole cases. Aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-1986, the second party Tufail Ahmad and another went in revision. The revision application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were dropped. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Abdul Gafoor and others have come in revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. The revision application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were dropped. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Abdul Gafoor and others have come in revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. The main contention of the applicants counsel is that the City Magistrate has not disposed of the application for dropping the proceedings and as such the order of the learned Sessions Judge dropping the proceedings was bad in law. On the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that since admittedly a case in the revenue court was pending between the parties or their wives in respect of the said plot, the criminal court was bound to drop the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 A. C. C. (2z) 45. I had the occasion to discuss the above-cited case in Criminal Revision No. 1788 of 1986 which was decided on 30-7-1991 and I have observed as follows : - "in the case of Ram Sumer Puri, Mahant, the question of title and possession over the subject-matter had alredy been adjudicated and the suit had been dismissed by the Civil Judge. An appeal against the Judgment and order of the Civil Judge was still pending. It was in this background that the Supreme Court did not approve the parallel proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the same subject-matter between the same parties. Thus, Ram Sumers case is not an authority on the question that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. must be dropped in all cases whenever a civil suit is pending in respect of the same subject-matter between the same parties or between the parties through whom the parties are claiming their rights. Of course, parallel proceeding should not be allowed to continue if a party under Section 145, Cr. P. C. can seek an effective remedy/declaration from the civil court. Even in such a case the proceedings under Section 145 Cr P. C. should be dropped only when the civil court has passed some effective order indicating as to which of the parties was entitl ed to possession. P. C. can seek an effective remedy/declaration from the civil court. Even in such a case the proceedings under Section 145 Cr P. C. should be dropped only when the civil court has passed some effective order indicating as to which of the parties was entitl ed to possession. In some cases the proceeding should also be dropped when the civil court has appointed a receiver or has made some arrangement for the maintenance of such a property. But, when the civil court does not clarify the position regarding the possession of the contesting parties by passing an effective order and simply posses an innocuous order like maintenance of status quo, the criminal proceedings are not to be dropped because in that case both the parties may stake their claim for possession and the situation may lead to the breach of peace. In such cases, even proceeding under Sections 107/116 Cr. P. C. may not prove to be effective and the subject matter may have to be attached by the criminal court. Of course, orders passed by the criminal court in such cases shall be subject to the decision of the civil court. Thus, the Magistrate is not bound to drop the proceedings pending in his court in all cases under Section 145 Cr. P. C. for the simple reason that a civil suit is pending in the civil court in respect of the same subject matter between the same parties or through whom they are claiming". 9. In the present case admittedly the revenue court has passed an order that the parties were to maintain status quo. Thus it is obvious that no specific order regarding the question as to which one of the parties was in possession over the plot in dispute has been passed by the revenue court as such. The position is ambiguous and under these circumstances the criminal court is not barred from deciding the question as to which one of the parties was in possession within two months of the passing of the preliminary order. 10. In this view of the matter the revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 19-6-1989 is set aside. The case is sent back to the court of learned City Magistrate, Mirzapur, who will proceed to decide the case in accordance with law. Revision allowed. .