J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge Shajapur, in. the matter of Criminal Revision No. 28188, by which he set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Susner passed in Criminal Case No. 77/86: ( 2 ) THE facts briefly stated are as under. On 18. 8. 1986, non applicant No. 1 Ramsingh sb Simaji Bheel Adiwasi, preferred an application before S. D. M. Susner in view of provisions of 5. 145 Cr. P. C. In that application, he prayed that no interference be done in respect of his rights in context with survey No. 2/3 from Mothada P. S. Nalkheda, Dist. Shajapur. In that petition he pointed out that he had filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class II Susner bearing No. 197/80 against Maganlal s/c Narsinglal Kulmi and others in which he got temporary injunction in his favor and against them. He pointed out that Maganlal was likely to dispossess him by force. ( 3 ) IN the said matter it appears from the petition of the present petitioner that on 21. 9. 1986 Station Officer P. S. Nalkheda took possession of the said land from the present revision petitioner and delivered it to the Receiver Shri Ranjitsingh and panchnama to that effect was drawn by the Station House Officer. It appears from the revision petition itself that the petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court of M. P. against the order of Civil Judge Susner granting injunction in favor of Ramsingh, but the said revision petition was dismissed as non-maintainable. The 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge Shajapur set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Susner in the matter of Criminal Case No. 77/86 which was in favor of petitioner No. 1. Being aggrieved by that, the present revision petition has been filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner Shri S. S. Garg and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri B. L. Pawecha were heard. Both of the them referred to the record and placed reliance on some judgments in support of their arguments. ( 5 ) SHRI S. S. Garg appearing for the petitioners relied on a judgment of our High Court in the matter of Drug Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. R. T. O. Raipur. Both of the them referred to the record and placed reliance on some judgments in support of their arguments. ( 5 ) SHRI S. S. Garg appearing for the petitioners relied on a judgment of our High Court in the matter of Drug Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. R. T. O. Raipur. In the said matter, our High Court observed that:"the principle that a stay order or an ad interim injunction is issued to maintain and preserve the status quo existing at the time of the Institution of proceedings cannot be doubted. The real point, which has to be decided when an application for stay or for a temporary injunction is made, is not how the question ought to be investigated; but it is whether the matter should not be preserved in status quo until the question can be finally disposed of. A stay order or an order of injunction is not granted. To disturb the status quo. It is no doubt granted to restore the status quo, built is never granted to establish a new state of things differing from the state which existed at the date when proceedings were instituted. " ( 6 ) SHRI Garg also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Bhinka and others v. Charansingh, in which Supreme Court observed that: In passing an order under S. 145 (6), Cr. P. C. the Magistrate docs not purport to decide a partys title or right to possession of the land but expressly reserves that question to be decided in due course of law. The foundation of his jurisdiction is an apprehension of the breach of the peace, and, with the object, he makes a temporary order irrespective of the rights of the panies, which will have to be agitated and disposed of in the manner provided by law. The life of the said order is coterminous with the passing of a decree by a civil court and the moment a civil court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the criminal court. The orders arc thus merely police orders and decide no question of title. The life of the said order is coterminous with the passing of a decree by a civil court and the moment a civil court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the criminal court. The orders arc thus merely police orders and decide no question of title. ( 7 ) SHRI Garg also placed reliance on a judgment of our High Court in the matter of Pannalal and others v. Deviram, in which our High Court observed that: It is true that section 145 (5) of the Code unable the Magistrate to drop the proceedings on being satisfied that subsequently there was no likelihood of breach of peace. But if properly has been attached, there should be an order relating to it. The proceedings taken for securing restitution even after canceling the preliminary order are in the nature of incidental winding up proceedings, and the Magistrate is competent to look into the record to find out as to which was the party in possession at the of effecting the attachment. In. cases where it is not possible to do so, the Magistrate has to continue to keep the property under attachment till the decision by. a competent Court in that respect. But in no case, the parties should be left to be involved in a subsequent dispute. Similarly, the matter also should not be left with the police to decide as to which party was in possession and thereby entitled to restoration on the termination of the order of attachment ( 8 ) SHRI Garg also relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of R. H. Bhutani v. Miss M. J. Desai and others, in which Supreme Court observed that: possession of party within two months next preceding the date of order has to be considered. The fact that party is de facto possession is found in possession does not divest the Magistrate of his Jurisdiction. Relying on this judgment Shri Garg submitted that petitioner No. 1 was in physical possession of the land in dispute and the possession of it was taken by the receiver of which a panchnama was drawn by Station Officer incharge of P. S. Nalkheda. According to him, in view of this position, the land should have been returned to petitioner No. 1 and he is entitled to have possession of the said land. According to him, in view of this position, the land should have been returned to petitioner No. 1 and he is entitled to have possession of the said land. He further urged that learned second Addi. Sessions Judge did not consider this important aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order which has been passed by him and put to challenge in this revision petition should be set aside. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Pawecha appearing for N. A. 1 placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of U. P. and others. In the said matter, Supreme Court observed that:"when a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of parallel criminal proceeding under 5. 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 i. e. 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 the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. "shri Pawacha submitted that in view of these observations of Supreme Court that when civil suit was pending in a civil court and when there was an order granting injunction in favor of N. A. 1 in existence, S. D. M. Susner had no jurisdiction to passed order against N. A. 1. He pointed out that 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge Shajapur has pass correct and legal order by which the order passed by the S. D. M. in Cr. Case No. 77/86 has been set aside. ( 10 ) IN the present petition petitioner cannot take advantange of observations of our High Court in the matter of Durg Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. R. T. O. Raipur (supra), because in the present matter, the order which has been passed by the Civil Court is not establishing a new state of facts different from the state which existed at the date when proceedings were initiated. Pvt. Ltd. v. R. T. O. Raipur (supra), because in the present matter, the order which has been passed by the Civil Court is not establishing a new state of facts different from the state which existed at the date when proceedings were initiated. So also, the petitioner cannot take advantage of observations of Supreme Court in the matter of Bhinka and others v. Charansingh (supra) because when a civil court is dealing with the subject matter and when there is no material on record to show that' there is eminent danger to the public peace, the S. D. M. Susner does not have jurisdiction to pass orders which are likely to cause interference with the orders passed by the Civil court and the High Court. ( 11 ) THE petitioner cannot take advantage of the observations of our High Court in the matter of Pannalal and others v. Deviram (supra) also, because when a suit is pending in the civil court, the S. D. M. is not competent to look into the record to find out as to which was the party in possession at the time of effecting attachment. S. D. M. Susner does not have jurisdiction in the circumstances mentioned above to keep the said property in possession of a receiver or does not have power to give possession of the land in question to non-applicant No. 1. ( 12 ) OBSERVATIONS of Supreme Court in the matter of RH. Bhutani v. Miss. M. J. Desai and others (supra) are not available for the benefit of the petitioner, because the facts of the present matter are quite different from the facts of the said matter. While deciding the said revision petition, learned 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge Shajapur has considered the judgment of our. High Court in the matter of Kaniram v. Kashiram and another6, in which our High Court observed that. The purpose of the provision of 5. 145 of the Code is to provide for stop gap, arrangement and to prevent a breach of peace by affording protection to the party in actual possession of the subject of dispute till he is evicted there from in due course of law. Parties have to be discouraged from taking law into their own hands. ( 13 ) NOW, 10 view of observation of Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of UP. Parties have to be discouraged from taking law into their own hands. ( 13 ) NOW, 10 view of observation of Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sumer Pun Mahant v. State of UP. (supra), which is dealing with similar facts, observations of our High Court in the matters mentioned above, have now, no relevance. ( 14 ) IN the present matter non-applicant No. 1 had filed a civil suit and the Civil Court had granted ad interim injunction in his favor restricting the petitioner No. 1 from interfereing his rights in respect of the said land and when revision petition filed by him challenging that order has been dismissed by order of the High Court, it will have to be held till the civil suit is over, that non- applicant No. 1 was in physical possession of the said land when the said suit, was instituted and in the said order of injunction was passed in his favor. When the civil court is having seen over the said matter and when an injunction order was passed in favor of non - applicant No. 1, and against the present petitioner No. 1, the civil court is competent to deal with all the matters concerning the said suit in context with possession of the suit land and possibility of breach of public peace by the activities on the part of present petitioner No. 1 and opponent No. 1 and others. When the civil court is having seen over the said matter, there is no question of restoring possession of the suit land to the revision petitioner. When the said orders were passed by the Civil Court, and when civil court is having session over the said matter, there is no question of keeping the said land in possession of the revision petitioner. If the parties aggrieved in respect of their rights in respect of the said land and the said suit, may are in a position to vent out their grievance by seeking appropriate orders from the said civil Court. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that the learned 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge did not consider panchnama which was drawn by Station House officer P. S. Susner at the time of taking possession of the suit land from petitioner No. 1 do not find any mistake on the part of 2nd Addi. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that the learned 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge did not consider panchnama which was drawn by Station House officer P. S. Susner at the time of taking possession of the suit land from petitioner No. 1 do not find any mistake on the part of 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in view of the fact that the civil court was having session over the said matter and an injunction order was passed in favor of non-applicant No. 1. Learned 2nd Addi. Sessions Judge has considered all important facets of the matter and has passed the said order correctly which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. It is neither perverse nor illegal. ( 16 ) THUS, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back to the trial Court immediately. Revision dismissed. .