V. N. MEHROTRA, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying the entire proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in case No. 55 of 1986, Raj Mani and another v. Satya Narian Mishra, pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Mirzapur be quashed. 2. The brief facts, as will appear from the record, are that the opposite parties 2 and 3 had on 23-1-1986 filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract for sale against the present petitioner and one Ram Khilwan since deceased. It was in that suit asserted by the plaintiffs that Ram Khilawan, defendant No. 1, was owner of the land in question and entered into an agreement for sale in favour of plaintiffs on 15- 12-1975. Out of the sale amount of Rs. 40,000 the plaintiffs claimed to have paid Rs. 30,000 as advance. It was asserted that the owner had handed over the possession of the land in dispute on that date. The plaintiffs also impleaded the present petitioner alleging that he claims to have become the owner of the land under a gift deed allegedly executed by Ram Khilawan. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree of specific performance of contract and also prayed that if the court found that they were not in possession, the possession of the land in dispute be also delivered to them. 3. The defendant filed written statement denying the claim made by the plaintiffs. He also denied that the plaintiffs were in possession over the land in question. 4. It appears that after the suit was filed, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated by the S. D. M. , Mirzapur who passed a preli minary order under Section 145 (1 ). Cr. P. C. on 29-9-1986. The proceedings remained pending and ultimately on 30-7-1990, after about four years, an order under Section 146, Cr. P. C. was passed attaching the property. It is not disputed that the land in dispute in the civil suit, as well as the land in respect of which the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. have been initiated, is the same. P. C. was passed attaching the property. It is not disputed that the land in dispute in the civil suit, as well as the land in respect of which the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. have been initiated, is the same. The assertion made on behalf of the petitioner in this case is that as the civil litigation was already pending between the parties in which the question of possession is also to be examined by that court, there was no justi fication for initiating and continuing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in respect of the same property. 5. Parties have exchanged affidavits in this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has principally placed reliance on the decision in the case Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U. P. , 1985 (22) ACC 45 (SC ). He has also relied on the observation made by this Court in the case Ramji Bind and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1990 AWC 194 : 1990 JIC 39 (All ). Apart from the above, reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case Ranjit Singh and others v. Motilal Matiyar and others, 1988 (25) AWC 26. Learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 who, however, argued that there was no decision by the Civil Court in the trial nor any injunction order has been passed nor appointment of receiver has been made by that court and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are not liable to be dropped. 7. I have considered the above rulings and the decision of this Court in case Smt. Chamani Devi v. Shanker, 1992 (29) ACC 6: 1991 JIC 711 (All ). As mentioned earlier, it is in this case not disputed that the civil suit had been instituted earlier to the institution of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. It is also not disputed that the civil suit was in between the same parties. Further, from the allegations made in the plaint and the written statement filed by the parties in the civil suit, it appears that the question of possession was in issue in that suit. P. C. It is also not disputed that the civil suit was in between the same parties. Further, from the allegations made in the plaint and the written statement filed by the parties in the civil suit, it appears that the question of possession was in issue in that suit. Actually, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated during his arguments that an issue on the question of possession has also been framed by the Civil Judge in the suit. The said statement was not challenged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Thus, it can be accepted that the question of possession regarding the land in dispute is very much in issue in the civil suit. The fact that the dispute in the suit as well as in the present proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. relates to the same land is also not in dispute. In the circumstances, can it be said that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C- could continue even though the civil suit is stil pending. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahants case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the ques tion of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a paral lal criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2.-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that 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 orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dis pute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the par ties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaning less litigation". 8. In Ramji Binds case (supra), it was observed that three points are to be considered in such matter. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the par ties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaning less litigation". 8. In Ramji Binds case (supra), it was observed that three points are to be considered in such matter. Firstly, whether the subject-matter in proceed ings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is the same which is the property in dispute before Civil Court, secondly, whether the proceedings before Magistrates Court will amount to parallel proceeding is view of dictum of Supreme Court and thirdly, whether the concerned party can or should (emphasis supplied) approach court for appropriate remedy for avoiding paralled proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. 9. Applying the principles laid down in Ramji Binds case to the facts of the present case, it is obvious that all these three points are to be replied in favour of the present petitioner. As mentioned earlier, the civil suit as well as the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are between the same parties the subject-matter in both the proceedings is the same and the continuation of the present proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. will obviously amount to parallel proceedings as the question of possession is also in issue in the civil suit. Further the parties can approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy regarding the possession over the land in dispute by praying for injunction etc. The principle laid down in Ram Sumer Puris case is clearly applicable to the present case. In the circumstances, the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. which are pending for the last about six years should not be allowed to continue. 10. The petition is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings in case No. 55 of 1986 Raj Mani and Lalji first party and Satya Narain Misra, second party pending in the Court of S. D. O. Sadar, Mirzapur under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are quashed. Petition allowed. .