V. N. MEHROTRA, J. This is a revision against the order dated 26th February, 1990 by the Special/additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1988 upholding the orders passed by Magistrate concerned dropping the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure, but setting aside the order regarding attachment of property under Sec tion 146 (1) Cr. P. C. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present revisionist moved an application before the Magistrate concerned asserting that there was appre hension of breach of peace between the parties relating to the land in dispute as described in the application. 3. The learned Magistrate called police report and on the basis of the same, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C, on 14 10-1985 subsequently, order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. was passed on 20-10-1986 directing the attachment of the property in dispute. 4. During the pendency of the above-mentioned proceedings, an objec tion was raised on behalf of the second parties, who are Sahadev and Smt. Raj Kumari, regarding the maintainability of the proceedings. It was alleged by them that in respect of the same property, a suit was pending in the competent civil court and due to that reason, parellel proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. should be dropped. The learned Magistrate accepted this contention and by order dated 11-4-1988, dropped the proceedings. However observing that there was apprehension of breach of peace, he directed that the attachment order shall continue. 5. It appears that no revision was filed by the present revisionist against the order passed by the Magistrate concerned, while a revision was filed by the second party against the order dated 11-4-1988 so far as it related to the continuance of the attachment order. The learned Special Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur by his order dated 26-2-1990 allowed the revision and while confirming the order dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. set aside the order regarding the attachment of the same. 6. In this revision, it has been asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the order by the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings merely because of the pendency of the civil suit was not correct or legal. P. C. set aside the order regarding the attachment of the same. 6. In this revision, it has been asserted on behalf of the revisionist that the order by the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings merely because of the pendency of the civil suit was not correct or legal. It has also been argued that the order by the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the Magistrate regarding the continuation of the attachment is also illegal and invalid. 7. On behalf of the opposite parties, however, it has been asserted that the learned Magistrate was right in dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. as the proceedings in civil court were already pending in respect of the same subject-matter. It has also been asserted that the learned Magistrate was wrong in continuing the attachment while dropping the proceed ings hence the order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct and legal. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also pe rused the material which is on record. 9. The first question, which is to be considered in this case, is whether the learned Magistrate was right in dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. in view of the pendency of the suit between the parties. It is in this case not disputed that since the year 1979, a civil suit in respect of the land in dispute was pending and the present revisionist was the defendant in that suit. It was asserted by the plaintiff of the case that he had succeeded to the right of deceased Tej Singh, being his sister and also that she was in possession over the land in dispute. It was also asserted that the defendant has got a forged Will prepared in respect of the same property. The plaintiff had prayed for cancellation of the Will. 10. The contention by the defendant was that the plaintiff had no right or title in the land in dispute but the defendant became its owner under the Will executed by Tej Singh. He also asserted that he was in possession over the land in dispute. It appears that the suit was decreed by the Munsif con cerned on 28-7-1982 but the appeal filed against that judgment was allowed on 1-9-1984 and the suit was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision. He also asserted that he was in possession over the land in dispute. It appears that the suit was decreed by the Munsif con cerned on 28-7-1982 but the appeal filed against that judgment was allowed on 1-9-1984 and the suit was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision. It is not disputed that the suit is still pending in the competent court. 11. From the above discussion, it is apparent that a civil suit between the parties is pending before the competent civil court. In that suit, the ques tion of title and possession over the land in dispute is to be considered and determined, considering this fact, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was right in placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Mahant Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 472 . The parties can in the present case, approach the civil court for interim relief during the pendency of the suit in respect of the immovable property which was in dispute under Section 145, Cr. P. C. As mentioned earlier, the question of title and possession is being examined by the civil court in civil suit in respect of the same property. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was wrong in dropping the proceedings. 12. As regards the order of attachment passed under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. the same could continue during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. there was no justification for continuing the attach ment while dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. As mentioned earlier, the parties can approach the civil court; for interim relief in respect of the land in dispute. So the learned Magistrate was not right in continuing the attachment order even though dropping the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. The learned Special/additional Sessions Judge was right in allowing the revision filed by the opposite parties. 13. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .