Honble KOCHHAR, J. – Heard. (2). The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), for quashing the proceedings, pending under Section 145 of the Code, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate , Dausa, in respect of the land in dispute, inter alia on the ground that a civil suit is pending in respect of the land in dispute, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Dausa (ADJ), who passed an interim injunction-order on 22.3.82, and thereafter, the confirmed injunction-order has been passed on 25.2.86, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, for maintaining the status quo. (3). Shri Praveen Balwada who has appeared for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has stated that the petitioner, according to his own showing, had filed an application about 8 years back under sub- section (5) of Section 145 of the Code, stating that no dispute existed and as such the proceedings should be quashed and that the said application has so far not been decided and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Shri Balwada has also stated that the respondents side had approached this Court, by filing SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 236 of 1984 (Barji and Ors. vs. State of Raj.) and this Court had directed that the proceedings should be decided within a period of three months, but had upheld the proceedings, but that during those proceedings, the pendency of the civil suit and passing of the injunction order had not been brought to the notice of the Court, by the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this point now in this petition. (4). After perusing the certified copies of the proceedings in the civil suit and of the confirmed injunction-order, passed by the learned ADJ, the learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that the proceedings relate to the properties, including the land in dispute and that the confirmed injunction order had been passed by the learned ADJ in those proceedings. (5). (4). After perusing the certified copies of the proceedings in the civil suit and of the confirmed injunction-order, passed by the learned ADJ, the learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that the proceedings relate to the properties, including the land in dispute and that the confirmed injunction order had been passed by the learned ADJ in those proceedings. (5). Simply because, in the earlier petition, filed by the respondents side, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court, by the petitioner, who must have been a respondent in the earlier proceedings, it cannot be said that the petitioner is estopped from approaching this Court and contending that the civil court having seized of the jurisdiction in the matter and having passed the injunction order in regard to the possession of the lan in dispute, the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, cannot be continued. Since the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, is seized of the matter and injunction order in regard to possession has already been passed, if the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, are allowed to continue, that would result in abuse of the process of court and in miscarriage of justice. (6). For the above said reason, I accept this petition and quash the proceed- ings pending before the learned SDM, Dausa, under Section 145 of the Code, involving the land in dispute. (7). The petition stands disposed of accordingly.