ORDER 1. In proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. house No. 646 an adjacent Bageecha admeasuring 0.81 acres of Khasra No. 411/2 and 43/3 was attached by the Executive Magistrate and the present petitioner Anantram was appointed a receiver with the content of the parties. Originally Anantram was a member of party No.2, Pooranlal etc. but subsequently engaged his own counsel filed an independent reply led evidence and cross-examined certain disputes about the right of way the Executive Magistrate by his order observed that the other party has a right to pass through the disputed land. The said order was challenged in revision and was set-aside. Later on in Criminal Revision No. 190/82, this Court by its judgment dated 6.7.82 set-aside the order of the learned Session Judge which was passed by him in Criminal Revision No.22/82. This Court had further observed that the directions given by the City Magistrate on 30.1.82 and 27.2.82 shall stand restored. Thereafter, the matter was finally denied by the Executive Magistrate and he by his order dated 20.1.83 held that the present petitioner was in possession of the property and the party No.1 i.e. present respondent shall not disturb his possession over the house and the land detailed above. The matter was taken up in Revision before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 5/83 who by his order dated 22.1.83 directed the parties to maintain status-quo and by order dated 19.2.83 observed that since receivership has been terminated on 20.1.83, there was no question of maintenance of status-quo. Ultimately the said Revision was dismissed and the matter came up before this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 504/83. 2. This Court by its judgment dated 4.5.83 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 504/83 allowed the petition and set-aside the order of City Magistrate passed on 20.1.83 and remanded back the matter to him for deciding the matter afresh as per direction contained in the said order. The matter was again decided by the Executive Magistrate on 26.12.83. After appreciating the rival contentions and after going through the evidence available on record the learned Magistrate found that certain Civil Suits were pending between the parties in which Bhagele had prayed for a decree of possession. The learned Executive Magistrate observing that within two months before the date of passing of preliminary order. Anantram was in possession. After appreciating the rival contentions and after going through the evidence available on record the learned Magistrate found that certain Civil Suits were pending between the parties in which Bhagele had prayed for a decree of possession. The learned Executive Magistrate observing that within two months before the date of passing of preliminary order. Anantram was in possession. He also observed that party No. 1, Veeranlal and party No.2, Pooranlal may get their dispute settled before the Civil Court. He directed both the parties not to commit breach of peace. In Para No.8 of its order, the Execution Magistrate observed that Anantram was in possession of the property since 1953 and none has contradicted his contention. Despite the order of the Magistrate restraining others from interfering the possession of the present petitioner, others started interfering with the possession of the petitioner, therefore, he had filed this letter petition complaining of his pathetic condition, the high handedness of respondents and inaction of the police. After registration of the said letter as a petition, notices were issued to the respondents and their reply were received. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 contended that they have not dispossessed the petitioner while the respondent No.6 had stated that despite the orders of the Executive Magistrate the breach of peace was likely to be committed, therefore, the petitioner and others were arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were drawn. 3. Shri Tiwari submits that so long as order dated 19.6.83 is in force and has not been challenged by the respondents, none has authority to disposses him and nobody can disposses him except in accordance with law. On the other hand, Shri Chopra submits that the respondents No.1 to 5 have not dispossessed the petitioner and as the Civil Suit is still pending, the petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that this Court must grant a direction to the Executive Magistrate to comply with its earlier order dated 26.12.83 and to enforce the same. 5. As observed above house No. 646 and the adjoining land admeasuring 0.81 acres was in dispute, was attached and was ultimately to be found in possession of petitioner Anantram. Shri Chopra was unable to say that in execution of any other order or decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner was ever dispossessed. 5. As observed above house No. 646 and the adjoining land admeasuring 0.81 acres was in dispute, was attached and was ultimately to be found in possession of petitioner Anantram. Shri Chopra was unable to say that in execution of any other order or decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner was ever dispossessed. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has not been dispossessed in execution of any order or execution of a decree passed by a competent Court then he has a right to remain in possession. Any interference with his possession is certainly illegal and even if he had been dispossessed by force then he is entitled to restoration of his possession because the Court cannot sit idle and see the party fighting on the road nor would the Court permit them to take the law in their own hands. Once an order is passed by a Competent Court, whether civil or criminal, unless the order is set-aside, it has to be respected and observed by all the parties to such proceedings and orders. In a case under Section 145, Cr.P.C. the dispute is not only between the private individuals, the State is also a party because to maintain peace and tranquility the State as the complainant comes before the Executive Magistrate. If the order by the Executive Magistrate, declares one party to be in possession then it is always duty of the police to see that the order passed by Executive Magistrate is religiously observed and the other party does not take the law in its own hands. In the instant case, the respondents being muscleman were trying to take law in their own hands and the police instead of taking on action against them was happy drawing proceedings under .section 107/116, Cr.P.C. against both the parties. It was well within the knowledge of the police authorities that the petitioner was declared to be in possession of the property and the respondents were restrained from interfering with his possession. It was well within the knowledge of the police authorities that the petitioner was declared to be in possession of the property and the respondents were restrained from interfering with his possession. If a complaint is made to police that despite order of a competent Court, not to interfere with the possession of the complainant, the other party taking law in its own hand was trying to interfere with the possession of the complainant, then the police was required to take action against such party which had taken the law in its own hand and not against the complainant who was trying to save his possession. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is directed that the parties to this petition shall remain present before the Executive Magistrate on 9.12.96. On that day or within the extended period, the petitioner shall file his complaint before him. Within fortnight of it, the respondent No.1 to 5 shall file their reply to the same. The learned Executive Magistrate shall make an enquiry into the matter and if after hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion that the present petitioner despite the order dated 26.12.83 has been dispossessed from the premises except in accordance with law then he shall restore the possession of the property to the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found to be in possession of the property then the respondents No.1 to 5 shall not interfere with his possession and if the petitioner is not found to be in possession and the possession is restored back to him then the respondents No.1 to 5 shall not interfere with his possession. The learned Magistrate shall conclude the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. The petition is finally disposed of with the directions as above.