Judgment Ram Nandan Prasad, J. 1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as thecode should be allowed to continue during the pendency of the Title Suit. 2. The facts, not in dispute, are that on 5-3-1991 a proceeding under section 144 of the Code was initiated On 1-5-1991 the said proceeding was converted under Sec.145 of the Code. On 4-3-1992 the land under the proceeding was attached. In the year 1992 Title Suit No.24/92 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title, interest and possession over the suit land and also the sale deed dated 22-3-1969 executed in favour of defendant No.1 indradeo Rai as illegal and null and void. Opp Party No.2 is the son of indradeo Rai, defendant No.1. Opp. Party No.2 along with others are defendants in the suit The petitioner after filing of t-e suit filed an application before the Magistrate for dropping of the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Code on the ground that the civil suit was pending. The said application was rejected by order dated 10-4-1992 which has been impugned in this application On 18-1-1993 while admitting this application the Court directed hearing of this case by a Division Bench. 3. Section 145 of the Code is a remedy for prevention of breach of peace arising out of a dispute relating to immovable property. Its primary object is to maintain peace and not to decide the dispute between the contendig parties or adjudicate upon the right of the parties to possession. An order under Sec.145 of the Code deals with the factum of possession of the party on a particular day. It confer no title to remain in possession over the disputed property. 4. In a properly constituted suit when the question of possession is involved, right to possession has to be gone into by the civil Court The civil court may decide the suit contrary to the order of the criminal Courts in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code as the order of the criminal Court is not binding on the civil Court, but the decision of the civil Courts would be certainly binding on the criminal Courts and same has to be respected by the criminal Courts. Further more, the parties to the litigation, may approach the civil Court for interim order such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of the suit. Thus, parallel proceeding in the criminal Court under Sec.145 of the Code during the pendency of the suit in the civil Court would be meaningless as its order has no finality and is subject to the decision of the civil Court. 5. However, learned counsel for the opp. party No.2 contended that the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code was initiated earlier and the suit was filed much thereafter and thus in such a situation the proceeding should be allowed to continue. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon a decision in the case of Smt Kalindi Devi V/s. The State of Bihar and others reported in [1991 (2) P. L. J. R.552] wherein it has been held that filing of a civil suit subsequent to initiation of a proceeding under Sec.143 of the Code cannot be a ground to drop the proceeding. The initiation of a proceeding prior or subsequent to the institution of a suit is immaterial for the purpose of the decision on the point involved in the case. The petitioner also relied upon a decision in Most Suamrati Kuer and others V/s. Janki Saran singh reported in [1981 P. L. J. R, 66] wherein it has been held that existence of a civil suit between the parties can be no bar in law for initiation of a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code. The view expressed in the aforesaid decision cannot be accepted in view of the decision in Ram Sumerpuri mahant v Stare of U P and others reported in [1985 B. B. C. J.37 (Sl)] wherein the Apex Court has held that the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke jurisdiction when possession is being examined by the civil Court and the 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 properties during the pendency of the disprte, multiplicity of the litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigations. 6. 6. It is, however, made clear that the position would be different if a final order is passsd under Sec.145 of the Code by a Magistrate competent to decide such proceeding and then a suit is filed by the parties against whom an order under Sec.145 of the Code is passed. In such a situation the final order passed under Sec.145 of the Code cannot be set at naught only because unsuccessful has approached the civil Court. In this connection reference may be made to the decision In Jhunamal Devananddas V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [ air 1988 SC 1973 ]. 7. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the suit between the parties is pending for adjudication of title, interest and possion over the disputed land. In the civil suit right to possession has to be gone into. No final order has been passed in the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code. The parties may approach the civil Court for interim relief to protect the propertie in dispute. Thus, in such a situation the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code cannot be allowed to proceed during the pendency of the suit as it would amount to wastage of time over meaningless litigation. 8. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstatces as discussed above, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code should not be allowed to continue. Any of the parties in the suit, if so likes, may approach the civil Court for grant of injunction or appointment of receiver if the situation so arises. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 16-4-1992 passed in Case No.353/91 pending before the executive Magistrate. Bhagalpur is quashed. 9. However, bolh the parties are interested for early disposal of the civil suit. In the circumstanes, parties are at liberty to approach the civil court for early disposal of the suit and if such request is made by the parties the Court shall also take all steps for early disposal of the suit. Application allowed.