JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Cr. Revision Petition No. 52/90 whereby the judgment passed on 18.8.1990 passed by learned Addl. District Magistrate (City), Bikaner in the proceedings under sections 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. was confirmed. 2. Gayatri Devi w/o Ratna Ram resident of New Line Gangashahar, Bikaner submitted an application under section 145 Criminal procedure code along with her affidavit with the averment that she is living in plot No. 81 for the last 10 years with her two sons. Her house described in para one of the application was constructed by her and she is owner of it. Her husband used to beat her and when it became impossible to live together she started living separately with his two sons for the last two years. The plot of this house has purchased in the name of her husband, her husband took in exchange another plot in the name of petitioner relinquishing her right over this plot. She took water and electric connection in her name. After the marriage of her son Ganesh Kumar, her husband was shifted to one part of this house by Ganesh Kumar in order to avoid criticism in the society. That portion was separated by raising a wall which has been shown by brown colour boundaries in the map and she is living in the southern part shown in the map but her husband continued to treat her harshly and abusively and left this house before two-three months for living in his house situated at Nagdecheji, she, therefore came in possession of the northern part of the house. On 26.6.1990 non-petitioner No. 1 & 2, Radheshyam and Lalchand came on a scooter took forcible possession of northern side of the house and claim that house belonged to them and they will further take forcible possession of the whole house. They also took liquor and many persons of the Mohalla assembled there. They also started obstructing the applicant non-petitioner No. 2 from using the roof of the house. They threatened on 5.7.1990 to vacate the complete house otherwise she will be killed by them. They also quarrelled and threatened to take forcible possession in the presence of Rajkamal Chaudhary, Bhopal Singh and Pukhram. They also started obstructing the applicant non-petitioner No. 2 from using the roof of the house. They threatened on 5.7.1990 to vacate the complete house otherwise she will be killed by them. They also quarrelled and threatened to take forcible possession in the presence of Rajkamal Chaudhary, Bhopal Singh and Pukhram. Her son immediately reported the matter to Police Station and A.S.I. Kalyansingh with force reached on the spot but even then they continued to quarrel and threaten to take possession forcibly. Kalyansingh ASI in the above circumstances arrested the non-petitioners and other two persons and took them to Police Station and presented a complaint under section 107 & 116(3) Criminal procedure Code Even then non-petitioners and other two companions openly declared and threatened to take forcible possession of that part of the house which is in the possession of applicant non-petitioner No. 2. There is serious apprehension of breach of peace and dispute has arisen about the possession of northern part of his house shown in the map attached with the application. In the above circumstances, a situation of emergency has also arisen and therefore, it was prayed that possession of the disputed portion may be declared of the applicant non-petitioner No. 2 and possession handed over to him. An application was also submitted under section 146 Criminal Producer Code with the same facts and affidavits by the applicant non-petitioner No. 2. Pukhraj and Bhopalsingh were submitted in support of the same. Upon considering the applications under section 145 Criminal Producer Code and 146 Cr.P.C. and the affidavits and after recording satisfaction, preliminary order was drawn under section 145 Criminal Producer Code on 20.7.1990 and notices were issued against non-petitioners. The proceedings were adjourned on 31.7.1990 and 18.8.1990 for the service of non-petitioner. On 18.8.1990 the learned Addl. District Magistrate (City) Bikaner on his satisfaction and considering application under section 146 Criminal Producer Code and affidavits found the case of emergency and issued orders of attachment of the disputed portion of the house shown by brown colour and appointed SHO P.S. Gangashahar as its receiver. 3. The petitioners preferred a revision against the above said order dated 18.8.1990 which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on 29.8.1991. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioners preferred a revision against the above said order dated 18.8.1990 which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on 29.8.1991. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have preferred this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2. The first argument on behalf of petitioners is that the application under section 145 was presented on 19.7.1990 and preliminary order was drawn on 20.7.1990, notices were issued and date was fixed for 31.7.1990 since the notices were not served, next date was fixed for 18.8.1990 and on that day attachment order was passed by learned District Magistrate under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code Moreover, there was no case to be one of emergency on 18.8.1990. Had it been a case of emergency the attachment order could be passed on the date of preliminary order i.e. 5.7.1990 but on that day only preliminary order was drawn and notices were issued to non-applicants. Thereafter no application was filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 for issuing the order of attachment of disputed property. There did not occur any incident and did not arise such circumstances between the day of institution of the proceedings i.e. 27.6.1990 to the date of order of the attachment 18.8.1990 to make it a case of emergency in order to attach the subject of dispute. Secondly, it is argued that it is a dispute between the husband and wife and about the title of the disputed house and its possession. It was the case of joint possession in the facts and circumstances, proceedings could not be initiated under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code Thirdly, civil litigation is pending between the parties in the civil Court and admittedly injunction has been issued. The civil Court can be moved by the parties for getting relief of temporary injunction or appointment of receiver to protect the property and the attachment under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code is not warranted and the proceedings also under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner has considered all the above contentions put forward before him. The civil Court can be moved by the parties for getting relief of temporary injunction or appointment of receiver to protect the property and the attachment under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code is not warranted and the proceedings also under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner has considered all the above contentions put forward before him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioners have not as yet put up appearance in the Court of learned District Magistrate in compliance of the notices and no reply has been filed by them and their version of the dispute has not been placed on record. The documents have also not been produced before the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Bikaner. Both the parties produced documents in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner during the course of hearing of revision petition. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the controversy about the initiation of proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code during or before the pendency of civil litigation is not required to be considered and adjudicated upon while exercising the powers of revisional Court because the parties have not yet put up appearance in the trial Court and they have to state their version of the case duly supported by documents. Hence this matter was left undecided saying that the parties can raise this objection before the learned District Magistrate, Bikaner after putting up appearance and submitting their rival versions and contentions. Several decisions were referred during arguments to the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner which have been discussed in the impugned order in order to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the question of maintainability of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code during the pendency of the civil suit was left unanswered by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. I have anxiously considered the argument on behalf of the petitioners about the alleged abuse of the process of the Court on continuation of the proceedings under section 145 Sr 146 Criminal Procedure Code. when a civil suit between the parties is pending in the civil Court. Reliance was placed upon Alim Mohd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1986 RCC 166 wherein the parties had indisputedly joint possession of disputed land as it was in joint Khatedari of the parties. when a civil suit between the parties is pending in the civil Court. Reliance was placed upon Alim Mohd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1986 RCC 166 wherein the parties had indisputedly joint possession of disputed land as it was in joint Khatedari of the parties. One party filed a suit before the institution of the proceeding under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code for declaration and injunction. Therefore the facts emerged that the land was in the joint khatedari of the parties and the revenue suitwas pending between the parties when the proceeding under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code was initiated. In these circumstances, view was taken that in a case of joint possession of the parties proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code should not be initiated and Bhanwarlal v. Javan Ram & Ors., 1981 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 93 was followed, Ramsumerpuri Mahant v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 472 , was also referred and it was held that parallel proceedings should not continue to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and wastage of public time over meaningless litigation. The initiation of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code will amount to abuse of the process of the Court and in the facts and circumstances of that case proceedings were quashed. I have gone through the decision of Ramsumerpuri Mahant v. State of U.P. (supra) wherein civil Court dismissed the suit for title and an appeal against the decree of the civil Judge was pending disposal before the appellate Court. Their Lordships of Supreme Court laid down that when a civil litigation is pending wherein question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, there is hardly any justification of initiating parallel criminal proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code The logic behind this legal proposition is that decree of civil suit is binding on the criminal Court in such matters and the criminal Court cannot be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction when the question of possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties can approach the civil Court for interim relief such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during the pendency of dispute. In another decision Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 471 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if dispute involves a question of possession and not title of a house of co-owner, the dispute is likely to cause breach of peace, then Magistrate is empowered to proceed under section 145 Criminal Procedure code notwithstanding pendency of civil suit for title. The proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be dropped merely because the proceeding under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code have been dropped. In that case the dispute was between the father and son co-owner of disputed house but son dispossessed the father forcibly and prevented him from entering into the house. The father instituted a suit for injunction and also proceedings under sections 107 & 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate dropped the proceedings under section 107 and also proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code In the facts and circumstances of the case and the civil suit the dropping of the proceedings was held improper as there still continue the apprehension of breach of peace. It will be advantageous to quote here the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court: "True, a suit or remedy in civil Court for possession or injunction normally prevents a person from invoking jurisdiction of the criminal Court as observed by this Court in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P . '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 the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation.' The normal rule is as stated by the Court in Puri's case. But that was a suit based on title. And that could be decided by civil Court only. That ratio cannot apply where there is no dispute about title. When claim or title are not in dispute and the parties on their own showing are co-owners and there is no partition one cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and ask the other to act in accordance with law. That ratio cannot apply where there is no dispute about title. When claim or title are not in dispute and the parties on their own showing are co-owners and there is no partition one cannot be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and ask the other to act in accordance with law. Where the dispute is not on the right to possession but on the question of possession the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code Neither the High Court nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cared to ascertain if the respondent had any claim to lawfully prevent the appellant from entering into his own house." (emphasis supplied)Therefore, the final picture which emerges is that the pendency of the civil suit or a decree of the civil Court relating to the subject of dispute does not always exclude the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings under section 145 & 146 Criminal Procedure Code to exercise its powers therein when he is satisfied that a question of possession is involved and it is leading to serious apprehension of breach of peace and emergency. An absolute rule cannot be laid down that whenever a civil proceedings are pending or there is decree of civil Court, the proceedings under sections 145 & 146 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be instituted or initiated even when there is likelihood of breach of peace. When there is a question of possession and a dispute arises between the parties causing apprehension of breach of peace, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code The sum and substance is that it will have to be seen that what is the nature of the civil suit pending and what questions of title and possession are involved therein and the status of the parties in relation to the subject matter of dispute. It has also to be considered that what are the rights to possession of the rival parties in the disputed property. It has also to be considered that what are the rights to possession of the rival parties in the disputed property. This factor is also relevant to consider as to whether a party can be allowed to forcibly evict the another and enter into the possession and thereafter under the garb of pendency of civil litigation to ask the other party to act in accordance with law because no party can be permitted to act forcibly and unlawfully and to cause breach of peace or apprehension of breach of peace. Of course, it has also to be ensured by the Court that the party is not disobeying the orders of the civil Court or its execution by using the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code as an instrument for the same and to use it as an abuse of process of the Court instead of protecting his legal rights about the possession of the disputed property in accordance with the provisions and procedure under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the initiation of the proceedings under section 145 & 146 Criminal Procedure Code is an abuse of the process of the Court whenever a suit is pending about the disputed property in the civil Court. Whether the proceedings under section section 145 Criminal Procedure Code can continue when civil suit is also pending is such a matter as can only be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case and nature of the relevant pending civil proceedings. I, therefore, entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge for keeping this matter open to be decided by the learned District Magistrate after appearance of the petitioners in his Court and filing of the reply and the documents and affidavits by them. I, therefore, entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge for keeping this matter open to be decided by the learned District Magistrate after appearance of the petitioners in his Court and filing of the reply and the documents and affidavits by them. The petitioners shall be free to raise their objection, if so advised in this regard before the learned District Magistrate who may decide the objections on merits after hearing both the parties and after considering the material on record keeping in view' the above observations.I also refrain myself from considering this objection at this stage while exercising inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. because at this stage I do not find any circumstance to hold that the initiation of proceedings under section 145 & 146 Criminal Procedure Code may be termed as abuse of process of the Court. 8. The other contentions about the satisfaction of the Magistrate about the existence of emergency for issuing order under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code do not detain us any more. It is settled principle of law that the satisfaction of the Magistrate exercising its jurisdiction under section 145 or 146 Criminal Procedure code cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of the revisional Court and cannot be so in any case of this Court exercising powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure code The learned Sessions Judge has repelled this contention of learned counsel counsel for the petitioners giving adequate reasons that the satisfaction of the Magistrate is final unless it is shown to be perverse or that no prudent man will feel satisfied about apprehension of breach of peace or existence of emergency on the available material on record. The satisfaction of the Magistrate is not ordinarily liable to be interfered with even if the revisional Court is inclined to hold a different view. Merely because the order of attachment under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code was not passed on the date of preliminary order, it is not sufficient to hold that there was no emergency existing to warrant an order of attachment. The application under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code with affidavits and a prayer to attach the disputed property as a situation of emergency had arisen due to the dispute over the property in question was pending. The application under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code with affidavits and a prayer to attach the disputed property as a situation of emergency had arisen due to the dispute over the property in question was pending. At any stage of the proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate is competent to exercise its jurisdiction under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code if the essential conditions are fulfilled therein i.e. the existence of emergency. It is not necessary that there should happen any incident causing breach of peace between the period of making the order under sub-section 1 of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and the order passed under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate can make an order to attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court determines the right of the parties with regard to the entitlement of the possession thereof if he considers the case to be one of emergency.In the instant case the learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction for considering the case to be one of emergency and consequently passed the order under section 146 Criminal Procedure code and I do not find any jurisdictional error or illegality or impropriety. I also do not find any defect in the preliminary order dated 20.7.1990. The order under section 146 Criminal Procedure Code dated 18.8.1990 also deserves to be maintained. No case is made out to invoke powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure code. 9. Consequently, the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 29.8.1991 is hereby maintained. The petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is devoid of any force and therefore it is hereby dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******