J. K. MATHUR, J. An application was moved by the opposite party Smt. Avadhraji before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur in the district of Faizabad purporting to be one under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of plot No. 268. The learned Magistrate being satisfied about the apprehension of breach of the peace passed a preliminary order on 28-4-1987. He subsequently passed an order under Section 146 (1), ordering the property to be attached on 13-10-1987. 2. A revision was filed against this order in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faizabad by the present applicant. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition on the ground that no revision was maintainable. The revision was dismissed on 9-6-1988. 3. The present petition has now been filed against the initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. mainly on the ground that in respect of same land a dispute is a pending between the applicant and Jagunu deceased in Second Appeal No. 510 of 1992. It appears that a suit was filed by the present applicant for cancellation of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by Jagunu in favour of Bhagwati Prasad. This suit also sought a relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff possession of the property. The property included the land constitut ing plot No. 268. 4. This suit was dismissed and an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Firozabad. The Additional District Judge, Faizabad allowed the appeal in part and ordered cancellation of the sale deed to the extent of half share in the property. He also granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff to the extent of his share. It appears that an appeal against this judgment was filed by Jagunu and is still pending in this Court. 5. The opposite party in this case claims to be a legatee from Jagunu, saying that a Will has been executed by Jagunu who has since died. 6. It is thus clear that Smt. Avadhraji, the opposite party is a successor-in-interest of Jagunu who was a party to the suit which is pending in second appeal before this court. 7. 5. The opposite party in this case claims to be a legatee from Jagunu, saying that a Will has been executed by Jagunu who has since died. 6. It is thus clear that Smt. Avadhraji, the opposite party is a successor-in-interest of Jagunu who was a party to the suit which is pending in second appeal before this court. 7. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the case of Ram Sumer Suri y. State of U. P. ( AIR 1985 SC 472 ) and it has been urged that because a suit is pending in the civil court and a question of possession is also involved in that suit, parallel proceedings in the criminal court should not be permitted In the afosesaid case, it has been held by the Supreme Court: ". . . . . . . . . the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdic tion particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and 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 pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of parties nor it public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. " According to this decision if there is a proceeding pending in a competent court where the question of possession is being examined and where either of the parties can obtain an interim order for preservation of the property, or of his right, then the proceedings under Section 145 would be nothing but multi plicity of litigation. 8. In this case Annexute 1 is copy of the plaint in suit instituted by the petitioner Sadhu against Bhagauti Prasad and Jugun. It has sought not only the cancellation of sale deed allegedly executed by Jugun in favour of the other defendant but has also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession In alternative possession has also been asked for. Thus the suit necessarily raises the question of possession over the property. 9. As pointed out above, it is not disputed that the opposite party Smt. Avadhraji is claiming to be a successor-in-interest of Jugun and after his death would be a party to the aforesaid case in the second appeal. Thus the suit necessarily raises the question of possession over the property. 9. As pointed out above, it is not disputed that the opposite party Smt. Avadhraji is claiming to be a successor-in-interest of Jugun and after his death would be a party to the aforesaid case in the second appeal. In the circums tances, the question of possession on the property is under consideration. Even if it has not been effectively decided by the first appellate court as appears from the judgment, it can still be required to be decided in the second appeal. In any case in the appeal either of the parties can obtain interim order about the preservation of the property or to secure their rights including possession during the pendency of the proceedings. 10. In these circumstances, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. cannot be permitted to be initiated or continued as it would result in nothing but duplication of proceedings which -is unnecessary as in any case the findings recorded in the regular suit would be binding between the parties about their rights and possession. 11. As a result, I find that the order initiating proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in Criminal Cases No. 179 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikapur, district Faizabad is liable to be set aside. 12. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the preliminary order initiat ing the proceedings is hereby set aside the property, if attached, shall be given to the possession of the party from whose possession it was attached. The parties shall be at liberty to obtain appropriate orders from the appellate court in respect of possession of the property. Petition allowed. .