ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) BHUPAL Singh. , Gulab Singh, Bhushan Singh, Shree Pal Singh, Hanuman Singh and Phool Singh, all sons of Makhan Singh have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order passed by the Magistrate on 13-1-1989 (Annexure - 9) and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Revision on 10-5-1990 (Annexure - 11) be quashed and it has been further prayed that the proceedings after the application moved by the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 on 18-2-1987 be quashed. ( 2 ) WHEN this writ petition was filed the following interim order was passed :-"issue Notice. Until further orders, the operation of the Magistrates order dated 13-1-89 and 10-5-90 will not be given effect to and the statuts quo at the site will be maintained. " ( 3 ) IT appears that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 claimed possession of the same plots concerning which the petitioners lay their claims. ( 4 ) AFTER the aforesaid interim order of this Court it appears that the petitioners moved an application before the Magistrate for some orders in pursuance of the said interim order whereupon the Magistrate passed the following order on 28-5-1990 (Translation by Court) :-"the Station Officer is directed to receive copy of the Honble High Courts order for compliance. Status quo shall be maintained at the site. " ( 5 ) THE opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 consequently filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in this Court against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate dated 28-5-1990 which has been numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 8615 of 1990. The prayer contained in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is that :-"the proceeding started on the basis of application dated 25-5-1990 i. e. (Annexure-5) along with the impugned order dated 28-5-1990 (Annexure-7) be quashed. It has further been prayed that further proceedings for re-delivery of possession to the Supurdar on the basis of the impugned order dated 28-5-1990 be stayed during the pendency of this application before this Honble Court. "it may be mentioned that this 482 petition was directed to be listed before this Court. Consequently when the petition under Section 482 Cr. It has further been prayed that further proceedings for re-delivery of possession to the Supurdar on the basis of the impugned order dated 28-5-1990 be stayed during the pendency of this application before this Honble Court. "it may be mentioned that this 482 petition was directed to be listed before this Court. Consequently when the petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. came up before this Court it was directed to be connected with the aforesaid writ petition and this is how both these matters have come up today after several adjournments obtained by the respective counsel. In the meantime learned counsel for the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits as well as have filed supplementary affidavits in either, of the proceedings mentioned above in this Court and today the matters was heard at length. It may be mentioned that in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. no interim order was passed. ( 6 ) COMING to the facts of the case, the whole petition concerns a dispute about possession regarding plot No. 581 having 5. 72 acres and plot No. 1793 having, 11. 45 acres, situated in village-Rampur, police Station Jasper, district Banda. ( 7 ) THE petitioners case is that these two plots were recorded in the name of Gajju Singh, their uncle who executed a will on 6-7-1986 bequeathing all his movable and immovable property in favour of the petitioners including the plots in dispute. They applied for mutation which was allowed by the Tahsildar on 29-5-1987. It is, however, not in dispute that on some proceedings initiated by the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 the Naib Tehsildar had passed some contrary orders on 26-8-1986 and that order was set aside by the Tehsildar on 20-5-1987 while ordering mutation in favour of the petitioners. Opposite party No. 3 is Smt. Sukhrani and opposite party No. 4 is Smt. Jhanki. They claimed to be daughters of Gajju Singh married in Kanpur Dehat and living, there with their husband Sheo Karan Singh and Sheo (sic) Singh respectively in two different villages but both falling under Police Station Ghatampur, district-Kanpur Dehat. They filed an application on 18-2-1987 praying that "crops of plot Nos. 581 and 1793 be attached under Section 145 (8) Cr. P. C. "after obtaining a police report on 28-2-1987 a preliminary order was passed concerning these two plots on 3-3-1987. They filed an application on 18-2-1987 praying that "crops of plot Nos. 581 and 1793 be attached under Section 145 (8) Cr. P. C. "after obtaining a police report on 28-2-1987 a preliminary order was passed concerning these two plots on 3-3-1987. The petitioners, however, filed their objection to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Some affidavits were filed indicating that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. The Magistrate passed a detailed order on 30-11-1987 where by he rejected the proccedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and also rejected the prayer for attachment of the crops as was made by Smt. Sukhrani and Smt. Jhanki. ( 8 ) THIS order of the Magistrate dated 30-11-1987 was challenged in Revision No. 167 of 1987 by the said opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 which was allowed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda who passed the order dated 15-2-1988 remanding the matter to the Magistrates Court for decision according to law. On the matter reaching the Magistrates Court on remand, Smt. Sukhrani opposite party No. 3s son Sheo Saran Singh, moved an application before the Supdt. of Police, Banda alleging apprehension through the petitioners and he also prayed that a Supurdar be appointed. The S. P. directed the police to enquire and report which was submitted on 10-2-1988. this report came to the court of the Magistrate who passed another preliminary order on 22-2-1988. ( 9 ) BEFORE going into further facts it may be mentioned that a very specific plea exists in the writ petition in para No. 18 concerning,, the existence of the two preliminary orders. For ready reference the said paragraph must be quoted here :-"that admittedly two orders under Section 145 (1) of the Act were passed; one on 3-3-1987 and another on 22-2-1988. This fact rendered the entire proceedings illegal and void, as the date of preliminary order is of vital importance for determining the possession of the parties. The respondent No. 1 has illegally observed that it was only irregularity and the proceedings were not affected. This fact rendered the entire proceedings illegal and void, as the date of preliminary order is of vital importance for determining the possession of the parties. The respondent No. 1 has illegally observed that it was only irregularity and the proceedings were not affected. " ( 10 ) IN the counter affidavit sworn by Sheo Karan Singh alleging himself to be the husband of Smt. Sukhrani, opposite party No. 3 and also alleging himself to be the Pairokar of opposite party No. 4, the aforesaid paragraph has been replied in para No. 49 which reads thus :-"that the contents of para No. 18 of the writ petition are denied. There is no illegality in the order and the technical errors of law do not attract interference in writ jurisdiction. " ( 11 ) TO complete the chronologly of the events, it may be mentioned that before the Magistrate the evidence by the parties was led whereupon he passed a final order on 13-1-1989 (Annexure-9) holding the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 to be entitled to possession which order was challenged by the petitioners in Revision but the Revisional Court dismissed it vide order dated 10-5-1990 (Annexure-11) and this is how in this writ petition the aforesaid two orders have come up to be challenged. ( 12 ) SRI S. K. Shukla and Sri R. K. Pandey has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and have argued the matter at length. Sri R. R. Shivahare has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 and has also argued the matter on their behalf with ability. ( 13 ) SRI Shivahare has placed reliance on two decisions. The first one is reported in (1995) 1 All WC 528 Harpal v. State of U. P. The other Ruling is (1993) 30 All Cri C 140 : (1993 All LJ 691) (SC), Dharampal v. Smt. Ramshri. It may be mentioned that so far as the case of Harpal (supra) is concerned, the learned Single Judge has gone into question of what should happen in a matter pending under Section 145 Cr. P. C. when final orders have been passed by Civil Court. It may be mentioned that so far as the case of Harpal (supra) is concerned, the learned Single Judge has gone into question of what should happen in a matter pending under Section 145 Cr. P. C. when final orders have been passed by Civil Court. In the case of Dharampal (1993 All LJ 691) (supra), the point in controversy raised before the Honble Supreme Court was that the property if attached by the Magistrate and handed over to the Receiver, the Civil Courts order would have the effect of nullifying the Magistrates order. ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned that the two rulings cited by Sri Shivhare have absolutely no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, are distinguishable. ( 15 ) BY the supplementary affidavit filed and the reply given to that affidavit, it is apparent that the matter has already gone to the Civil Court and orders have been passed concerning the rights of the parties in the aforesaid two plots. Sri Shivahare was emphatic in his argument that since the matter has already been dealt with by the Civil Court, those orders should be made the basis of any final adjudication that is going to be made by this Court concerning the two orders sought to be quashed in this writ petition. ( 16 ) SRI Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners however, was equally emphatic on his point that the origin of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. rests solely upon the preliminary order. In this connection he relied upon the fact that two preliminary orders are basis of the instant proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. He, therefore, contended whatever may be partys stand in the Civil Court, these two orders cannot be permitted to stand because they are in the teeth of the provisions of Section 145 Cr. P. C. ( 17 ) IT is true that some arguments were advanced concerning the merits of the matter also but this Court is refraining from considering the claim of the respective side whether it relates to Section 145 Cr. P. C. or concerning rights of the Civil Court. ( 18 ) IN order to decide these two matters, it may be mentioned that Section 145 Cr. P. C. or concerning rights of the Civil Court. ( 18 ) IN order to decide these two matters, it may be mentioned that Section 145 Cr. P. C. empowers a Magistrate to proceed only after making an order in writing and recording his satisfaction about apprehension of breach of peace concerning any land or water or boundaries. This order is commonly known as the preliminary order. A Magistrate is then called upon to take evidence as may be produced by the parties and then "decide whether any and which of the parties was, on the date of the order made by him in Sub-Section (1) in possession of the subject of dispute" ( 19 ) IN view of what has been noted above, the date of preliminary order is of paramount importance in proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. In other words law can never envisage and put up with proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P. C. where two preliminary orders exist. As noted above, the specific averments as to the two preliminary orders passed by the Magistrate has not been controverted by any sufficient date in other words Sri Shivahare, learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 very rightly argued that the record speaks and, therefore, what is apparent from the record cannot be obliterated. ( 20 ) IN view of what has been noted above, the entire proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was an illegal exercise. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate on 13-1-1989 must fail and has to be quashed. Likewise, the order of the Revisional Court dated 10-5-1990 should for the same reasons be quashed simultaneously. ( 21 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders dated 13-1-1989 and 10-5-1990 are quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. Criminal Misc. Application No. 8615 of 1990 is dismissed. Petition allowed. .